Reclaiming The Bible For A Non Religious World

RichieC

Ridiculous... The bible did not creat morals. It coopted the most logical. dont steal..obvious. Dont kill. Wow, really, we need the bible to tell us thats wrong? .

Sorry phil. Just becausr you buy into religion it doesnt give you a monopoly on whats good and moral.

philologos

RichieC wrote: »

Ridiculous... The bible did not creat morals. It coopted the most logical. dont steal..obvious. Dont kill. Wow, really, we need the bible to tell us thats wrong? .

Sorry phil. Just becausr you buy into religion it doesnt give you a monopoly on whats good and moral.

I never said that one couldn't be moral without believing in God. However, I do believe that people do what is right because God has given them a conscience. People do what is wrong when they suppress their conscience. God sets the standard for what is good and what is evil as far as Christians are concerned.

You've not answered my question. What is "good"? Where do you get this standard from. If you don't have a standard for what is good, anyone could say that they are good.

RichieC

The difference between good and bad is common sense. Even tribes in the world who never saw the bible know the difference.

philologos

RichieC wrote: »

The difference between good and bad is common sense. Even tribes in the world who never saw the bible know the difference.

Clearly you don't understand what I'm saying. I'll say it again.

I'm not saying that people need to believe in God to be able to do what is ethically right.

What I am saying is that the way that ethics works, is largely God given.

What I am saying is that it is impossible to claim that something is objectively "good" or objectively "evil" without an absolute standard. In the absence of an absolute standard how can you determine what is good from what is evil. If morality is subjective, anyone can have their own version of "good" or "evil". What could be "good" to one person could be "evil" to another if there is no objective standard of ethical behaviour.

When you are wronged, you don't say that you were subjectively wronged, and that the other person may have thought they did what was right. Rather what you do is claim that the other wronged you in a way that anyone could understand, and you appeal to them on the notion that it isn't acceptable to act that way. Acceptable under what standard?

Where do these rules of fair-play come from?

Sarky

You don't think they could arise from millenia of humans being human at each other?

philologos

Sarky wrote: »

You don't think they could arise from millenia of humans being human at each other?

The mechanics of morality which seem to work on the basis of objective rights and wrongs couldn't have.

The idea that morality was constructed would lead to moral relativism rather than moral objectivism.

Sarky

philologos wrote: »

The mechanics of morality which seem to work on the basis of objective rights and wrongs couldn't here.

The idea that morality was constructed would lead to moral relativism rather than moral objectivism.

And moral relativity is exactly what you see in the world. There are tribes where the coming-of-age ceremony for boys involves a man having sex with them. Reprehensible to most of us here, perhaps, but they don't think so. There are others where for a girl, the women pluck every single hair off her head. This is good and proper for them. Do you really think that a group of people who murdered and raped when they felt like it would be tolerated by other groups? They tend not to survive, or they get educated by others.

Thousands of years of tribes absorbing others, discarding and adopting traditions or taboos, leads to a reasonably homogenous set of rules throughout that society seen as right and proper.

And now, here we are, with societies that span continents, and reasonably homogenous sets of what constitutes right and wrong in each, with relativistic slidey-scales all over. You see it in the age of consent, the age limits on drinking and voting and driving, you see it in every prison sentence handed out in every court in the world.

It's not terribly far-fetched. And it doesn't require divine intervention. Why you seem to think God is required for it, I have no idea. Perhaps you just like that idea.

smcgiff

LOL at morality being invented by the Jewish/Christian bible. Most of the laws are bat **** crazy for starters.

To think any of the "good concepts" that Christians like to cherry pick from the bible were unique to the bible is ludicrous.

philologos

Where did I say that morality was invented by the Bible? Just curious? - You might want to focus on what I said, rather than what you wanted me to say.

Sarky: Think of this with me. If someone was out human-fieldshooting as a Sunday morning activity and felt that this was a perfectly acceptable thing for him to do, would he not be "right" to do so under his own moral compass. Indeed, how can you be so sure that your moral compass would be any better than his in the absence of an objective standard for determining what was right and wrong. Simply put, in the absence of this, if you were to claim that he was wrong, how could you confirm that your notion of ethics was any "better" than his was?

This is the problem I had with moral relativism when I was looking at it in philosophy class. It's inconsistent. Human behaviour contradicts its thesis at every juncture.

Sonics2k

philologos wrote: »

What I am saying is that the way that ethics works, is largely God given.

Sorry Phil, but I can't buy into any of this.

Ethics would be things like not stoning women because they dare to drive a car, or not raping women in africa to "cure" them of homosexuality. Both of these things are done in the name of "God".

God in these cases don't seem to be doing a good job of ethics. But the people who commit these acts would claim it's perfectly ethical in the eyes of them and God.

No, you learnt your ethics and whats good or bad from where you grew up and your environment. We both know that killing someone because they wanted to drive to the shop for a Mars bar isn't exactly Ethical.

philologos

Sonics2ks: If we're going to get into a discussion about religious institutions. I agree with you, many of them have gone the wrong way. I don't defend such institutions. If we go down this line, you're not engaging with what I'm saying, and secondly I'm going to agree with you. Human organisations in general tend to be corrupt - this is true of secular organisations as well as faith based ones.

God is a different subject. My point is that an objective concept of "good" cannot exist without a standard to determine what is "good" and what is "evil". If one is a moral relativist, one has to abandon the use of such concepts as one can't demonstrate objectively what is "good" and what is "evil". The only option would be to say that nobody knows what is good and what is evil. The problem with this is that actually, we do know what is good and what is evil. Why is this?

I don't believe that I learned my ethics from anywhere. I was given a conscience, and that conscience was refined in a number of ways throughout my life. At some junctures, I became very good at suppressing it even though I knew deep down that someway, somehow I was doing something wrong. I became better at understanding it the more and more I came to understand about it's source.

smcgiff

philologos wrote: »

God sets the standard for what is good and what is evil as far as Christians are concerned.

How does god set the standard, isn't it through the Christian bible, but forgive me if you mean you are hearing voices. Are you hearing voices?

philologos

Through our conscience (Romans 2), and through giving us guidance in His word as far as Christians are concerned.

It is because God informs our consciences that I can be confident in saying that non-believers can do what is ethical. My point was that God does it, the Bible on its own is just a book if you ignore who is behind it.

RichieC

To think.. This god who set out morals is the same one prayed to in mecca :pac:

smcgiff

philologos wrote: »

Through our conscience (Romans 2), and through giving us guidance in His word as far as Christians are concerned.

It is because God informs our consciences that I can be confident in saying that non-believers can do what is ethical. My point was that God does it, the Bible on its own is just a book if you ignore who is behind it.

So you are hearing voices but isn't Romans in the bible, which brings us back to my point re the contents of the bible.

philologos

RichieC wrote: »

To think.. This god who set out morals is the same one prayed to in mecca :pac:

Do you want to chat, or do we just want to constantly troll? One would be more productive than the other.

Even if the objective standard was the Islamic concept of God, your use of "good" as an objective concept is still questionable.

philologos

smcgiff wrote: »

So you are hearing voices but isn't Romans in the bible, which brings us back to my point re the contents of the bible.

Romans 2 discusses the conscience.

For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

You're confusing God and the Bible. I'm arguing that God created the conscience and as a result He's the Moral Law giver. He's the true way I can say something is good and something else is evil. The objective standard behind it all.

However, in the absence of an objective standard, one can't really say anything is "good" or "evil" in an objective sense. What basis would one have for saying something was "good" over someone else claiming something completely contradictory was "good"?

In a sense in a Christian view - if a non-Christian acts according to God's standard, that's good, if even only for that juncture which they do what's right. Indeed, if a Christian does what is wrong in God's standard, that's nonetheless wrong.

This is one of the issues I have with atheism in that it makes people inconsistent when it comes to referring to what is good and what is evil.

Sonics2k

philologos wrote: »

Sonics2ks: If we're going to get into a discussion about religious institutions. I agree with you, many of them have gone the wrong way. I don't defend such institutions. If we go down this line, you're not engaging with what I'm saying, and secondly I'm going to agree with you. Human organisations in general tend to be corrupt - this is true of secular organisations as well as faith based ones.

God is a different subject. My point is that an objective concept of "good" cannot exist without a standard to determine what is "good" and what is "evil". If one is a moral relativist, one has to abandon the use of such concepts as one can't demonstrate objectively what is "good" and what is "evil". The only option would be to say that nobody knows what is good and what is evil. The problem with this is that actually, we do know what is good and what is evil. Why is this?

I don't believe that I learned my ethics from anywhere. I was given a conscience, and that conscience was refined in a number of ways throughout my life. At some junctures, I became very good at suppressing it even though I knew deep down that someway, somehow I was doing something wrong. I became better at understanding it the more and more I came to understand about it's source.

Well actually, God and the Bible play a huge part in it.
We both know for example, that sending in an army of soldiers to wipe out a village, kill the men and take the women and children as Slaves is morally and ethically wrong. We know this from observation of history and our own culture.
However, the Old Testament clearly states this is okay for "Gods People" to do, as they are doing it to sinners.

I'd give more, but that is a fine example, and frankly I'm enjoying a few drinks for NYE.

/offtopic a moment
You are obviously an intelligent man Phil, and I actually quite like reading your posts as they are well thought out (unlike other posters who post nonsense on the Creationism thread), and cause some quite good debate, and though I don't always agree with you, it's mostly very nice to see your posts.

philologos

I never said that God and the Bible didn't play a huge part in it. He plays a huge part in my life, I have my ups and downs like everyone else. My point was to distinguish God from your other objections to some faith based institutions.

I suggest that you put some passages on the table, and we'll have a chat about them.

I don't know about the intelligence - I work with the humble amount that God's given me :pac:

Sarky

philologos wrote: »

Sarky: Think of this with me. If someone was out human-fieldshooting as a Sunday morning activity and felt that this was a perfectly acceptable thing for him to do, would he not be "right" to do so under his own moral compass. Indeed, how can you be so sure that your moral compass would be any better than his in the absence of an objective standard for determining what was right and wrong. Simply put, in the absence of this, if you were to claim that he was wrong, how could you confirm that your notion of ethics was any "better" than his was?

This is the problem I had with moral relativism when I was looking at it in philosophy class. It's inconsistent. Human behaviour contradicts its thesis at every juncture.

You arrived at the conclusion that there is no moral absolute, then shied away from the answer. So close.


As for your casual murderer, you're taking someone with one set of morals and dumping him all alone in a society with opposing morals. That's only going to end one way. You're thinking too locally. Too personally. Make it a few hundred thousand Sunday murderers. Now they're a society. Anything less gets swept aside by opposition or existing rules of societies that didn't like being shot at.

These things do not become law because they're "right". They become law because they provide a skeleton around which a society can grow. You won't get a society with morals like your Sunday shooter, because they do not result in a stable society. And your murderer will not last long in most stable societies, even if God Almighty came to him and told him he IS right to shoot people on sundays.

It has nothing to do with God. If it did, we would still be stoning people to death for such terrible crimes as shouting "Jehova" in a rude manner. From what you said above, I think you know this but don't want to admit it.

philologos

No. What I've said is that moral relativism makes zero sense. It makes better sense given the way that humans engage with morality that humans appeal to objective sources of ethical behaviour in order to resolve ethical disputes. People say that something is wrong or right, and when they say that they don't mean "wrong for them" or "right for them". They mean right and wrong objectively, external to their mind and internal to it because right and wrong are moral realities rather than mere opinion.

That's why we've felt the need to use the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" or why Thomas Jefferson despite being a deist wrote the following concerning human rights in the US Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Also, when I'm regarding to field-shooting humans, I'm simply regarding the ethical nature of the act rather than the legal. Do you think that murder is wrong simply because "humans don't like getting shot at"? Are you sure that a broader definition isn't warranted?

Simply put, I think murder is wrong because I am a human being, created in God's image. I think it is wrong for any man to take the life of another because I believe that they don't have the authority to do so. Life is a gift from God, not from man, He gives it, He takes it away.

Essentially - We're all humans, and we're all in this life thing together. This is why we should empathise with one another. What is in common between me and other humans is that we're created by God in His image, and that He longs to know us personally.

Some people may like getting shot at. Whether people like it or not is irrelevant to whether or not killing someone is wrong. Don't you think that ethics goes beyond what will "keep people around" in societies?

Sarky

philologos wrote: »

No. What I've said is that moral relativism makes zero sense. It makes better sense given the way that humans engage with morality that humans appeal to objective sources of ethical behaviour in order to resolve ethical disputes. People say that something is wrong or right, and when they say that they don't mean "wrong for them" or "right for them". They mean right and wrong objectively, external to their mind and internal to it because right and wrong are moral realities rather than mere opinion.

No. People BELIEVE that something is right or wrong. They often like to believe there's some unseen power looking after them, but the reality is that right and wrong change over time with society. That's why the death penalty is gone from a whole bunch of countries that used to have it. Hanging someone for treason or murder or whatever crime was right back then. It's not now. Not in the least bit objective. The death penalty sure wasn't repealed in Ireland because someone found new meaning in the bible. Homosexuality was decriminalised in the 80's because society works better when a significant section aren't being persecuted. It took so long to decriminalise it BECAUSE of God's laws. And please don't insult us both by taking the No True Scotsman's way out of that.

That's why we've felt the need to use the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" or why Thomas Jefferson despite being a deist wrote the following concerning human rights in the US Declaration of Independence:

And here I always thought it was because nobody could fully agree on what constitutes right and wrong. Why, it's almost as if we live in a world of moral relativism!

Don't you think the Declaration of Human Rights might have more to do with establishing some common ground rules so disputes are less likely to arise? Or did God just inspire the whole UN to finally write down a version of the bible that actually attempted clarity? Took him long enough, don't you think? He could have saved a whole lot of unnecessary suffering by getting it right the first time.

Also, when I'm regarding to field-shooting humans, I'm simply regarding the ethical nature of the act rather than the legal. Do you think that murder is wrong simply because "humans don't like getting shot at"? Are you sure that a broader definition isn't warranted?

Fine. Not only do most humans not like getting shot at, it terrifies them, it hurts like hell, and it can kill people you care about. Anyone could reason from first principles that killing people willy nilly is not an ideal state of affairs for a society as a whole.

I think you're still thinking to personally.

Simply put, I think murder is wrong because I am a human being, created in God's image. I think it is wrong for any man to take the life of another because I believe that they don't have the authority to do so. Life is a gift from God, not from man, He gives it, He takes it away.

So nothing to do with the fear and pain and loss and destabilisation of society that murder can cause? Really?

Essentially - We're all humans, and we're all in this life thing together. This is why we should empathise with one another.

Exactly.

What is in common between me and other humans is that we're created by God in His image, and that He longs to know us personally.

This bit is completely unnecessary. why would you go and ruin a perfectly good "We're all in this together, let's all contribute to making things nice" sentiment with "Because there's this supernatural force that wants you to do it"?

Some people may like getting shot at. Whether people like it or not is irrelevant to whether or not killing someone is wrong. Don't you think that ethics goes beyond what will "keep people around" in societies?

No, not really. Anything else is mostly window dressing. Do you not want a society in which people actively want to stick around?

philologos

If people believe that something is right and wrong, that's one thing, but that is not how morality works in disputes. Humanity is geared to look towards the objective when it comes to resolution. If you wrong me, I simply can't go and say "Ah well, perhaps that was right for him". I will aim to rebuke you and show you as to what you did wrong. If I didn't have some form of objective basis by which to appeal to you and to claim that you did wrong, then why would I bother. It would be thoroughly futile.

The same is true of diplomacy: if we were truly convinced that there was no objective moral standard, why would we bother condemning atrocities or dictators who oppress their populations unless that we actually believed there was an objective standard by which people should be treated, as by implication the UN do, or as Thomas Jefferson did.

Simply put, if we did not have any form of objective basis for ethical behaviour we wouldn't bother doing this even if parties resist being rebuked and continue to do what is wrong.

As for the murder example I provided earlier - Murder is no more right if I don't feel pain, or if the loved ones don't feel pain, or by some horrible fate the person had no loved ones to stand by him. It's wrong irrespective of how anyone feels about it. If I killed someone who had no loved ones, or someone for whom no pain would follow it would be about as wrong as if I killed someone who had all the loved ones in the world. When I studied philosophy, a guy called Immanuel Kant gripped me. He wrote the Groundwork for the Metaphysics for Morals. He said that ethical action should be pursued if it is right in and of itself. I agree with him on that much. A shopkeeper shouldn't try to scam a child due to ignorance because it's wrong, not because it will bring him extra trade as the result of his honesty and respect to the child. Ethical action in his view should be done because it's right, not because of what benefits it may bring. Sometimes ethical action turns out to ones detriment. Does that mean that it is still not right?

You seem to be hitting at Jeremy Bentham's and John Stuart Mill's concept of utilitarianism. We act on the basis of pain and pleasure. Or as Jeremy Bentham said "Pain and pleasure are our masters". This is actually the closest to moral objectivity. The problem lies in what is pain, and what is pleasure, and just because something is pleasurable doesn't mean that it is right. Indeed, sometimes incurring pain might come in the way of what is good.

Good is good because it's good, not because of perceived benefits, or drawbacks. Doing what is right for someone else will a lot of the time mean that something bad may happen to you as a result. Is it bad as a result? No. The world is screwed up like that sometimes.

krudler

philologos wrote: »

I subscribe to the idea of penal substitution.

.

is that when they change your pee pee to a vajayjay?

philologos

krudler wrote: »

is that when they change your pee pee to a vajayjay?

Read the link :pac:

krudler

philologos wrote: »

I believe that Noah's flood was regional, and there's evidence to suggest that a major flood occurred in that region at that time period.

so where did Noah "regionally" get two of every animal? or was it two of whatever was in the region at the time?

philologos

I think the latter. I could be entirely wrong also

smcgiff

philologos wrote: »

I could be entirely wrong also

You're getting there!

Sarky

philologos wrote: »

If people believe that something is right and wrong, that's one thing, but that is not how morality works in disputes. Humanity is geared to look towards the objective when it comes to resolution. If you wrong me, I simply can't go and say "Ah well, perhaps that was right for him". I will aim to rebuke you and show you as to what you did wrong. If I didn't have some form of objective basis by which to appeal to you and to claim that you did wrong, then why would I bother. It would be thoroughly futile.

What, no turning the other cheek?

Your basis for viewing things is completely subjective. There are very few people in your society who would disagree with what you think is right or wrong, but individuals aren't important on that scale. Society, as an entity, has a completely subjective view on morality, and its laws reflect that.

It IS how morality works in disputes. That's why we don't have the same set of laws we did 2,000 years ago. We don't even have the same laws we did last year. Ideas on what is right and wrong change, as societies change, and laws are changed accordingly.

The same is true of diplomacy: if we were truly convinced that there was no objective moral standard, why would we bother condemning atrocities or dictators who oppress their populations unless that we actually believed there was an objective standard by which people should be treated, as by implication the UN do, or as Thomas Jefferson did.

Simply put, if we did not have any form of objective basis for ethical behaviour we wouldn't bother doing this even if parties resist being rebuked and continue to do what is wrong.

You do realise that this "objective" standard the UN is using was created by humans, right? And is vague and subjective enough for different nations to determine how it should be implemented? The Declaration of Human Rights was created BECAUSE there are no objective standards. We create our own right and wrong, for the betterment of society as a whole. That's how it ALWAYS happened. The UN is just trying to manage much bigger societies than would fit in a church.

As for the murder example I provided earlier - Murder is no more right if I don't feel pain, or if the loved ones don't feel pain, or by some horrible fate the person had no loved ones to stand by him. It's wrong irrespective of how anyone feels about it. If I killed someone who had no loved ones, or someone for whom no pain would follow it would be about as wrong as if I killed someone who had all the loved ones in the world.

Feeling guilty over an act does not make the act "wrong". You'd feel you'd done something wrong after killing another human. Congratulations, you are not a sociopath. Your evolved empathy appears to be working.

Killing someone who won't be missed is indeed about as wrong as killing someone who will. But not for the reason you think it is, I suspect.

When I studied philosophy, a guy called Immanuel Kant gripped me. He wrote the Groundwork for the Metaphysics for Morals. He said that ethical action should be pursued if it is right in and of itself. I agree with him on that much. A shopkeeper shouldn't try to scam a child due to ignorance because it's wrong, not because it will bring him extra trade as the result of his honesty and respect to the child. Ethical action in his view should be done because it's right, not because of what benefits it may bring. Sometimes ethical action turns out to ones detriment. Does that mean that it is still not right?

You can give whatever reason you like for doing the "right" thing. Many people do. Most aren't being entirely truthful. How many people actively shun reward and praise when they do something good? Doing the right thing keeps societies stable and pleasant to live in. What does the society care if one person is inconvenienced as a result?

You seem to be hitting at Jeremy Bentham's and John Stuart Mill's concept of utilitarianism. We act on the basis of pain and pleasure. Or as Jeremy Bentham said "Pain and pleasure are our masters". This is actually the closest to moral objectivity. The problem lies in what is pain, and what is pleasure, and just because something is pleasurable doesn't mean that it is right. Indeed, sometimes incurring pain might come in the way of what is good.

Nope. Reward and punishment are certainly powerful influences, and I'm sure there are people who only do the right thing because they fear the consequences more, and vice versa.

I'm thinking more along the lines of "We're all in this together, so lets try and establish some ground rules that shold ensure none of our lives become too unpleasant." Much what you were advocating just before you added in all that god stuff. He's not necessary. I think we can work it out on our own. I think we're starting to get the hang of it in some countries.

Good is good because it's good, not because of perceived benefits, or drawbacks. Doing what is right for someone else will a lot of the time mean that something bad may happen to you as a result. Is it bad as a result? No. The world is screwed up like that sometimes.

Perhaps your god could make the world a little less screwed up? Asking too much?

You don't account for societies or even individuals having different versions of "good". Catholics generally believe suicide is a terrible sin, no matter the reason. In other countries, it's seen as a brave, honourable act if done for the right reason.

The bible is not a very good objective standard for morality. It's good you mentioned the UN Declaration of Human Rights though, I'd recommend that as a far superior starting point. No superstitious wishy-washy stuff, no embarrassing subclauses that we're encouraged to ignore that say rape and stoning and burning people are ok. Just a reasoned set of guidelines that should help make the world a slightly better place.

krudler

philologos wrote: »

I think the latter. I could be entirely wrong also

so the flood consisted of a couple of sheep, goats, some worms maybe, whatever he could grab. maybe its just the exaggerated tale of some mad old fcuker who stuck some animals in a raft and started claiming the world was going to be flooded. religion is really just the biggest game of chinese whispers ever when you think about it.