Frequently, I see theists writing that morals are objective and come from one of their various gods. I see them write that if morals are subjective, it’s a free for all.
IMO, if a person thinks that just following rules laid down by a more powerful being is behaving morally, they are mistaken.
I posit that if they are behaving decently toward their fellow human beings and the rest of the planet only because they think their god has said to do so, by all means, keep it up! If, however, they act abysmally toward others, again because their gods say so, I’ll take (or support) what action I can to stop them and call out their religion as complete horse shit.
(In anticipation of the question asking what it is to act abysmally...it includes that which risks or damages the wellbeing of another.)
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
If anyone claims they can possess morality only because it is dictated to them by a deity, then two obvious questions are:
1. How do they know this is moral, or not?
2. And if they do know what is moral, why do they need a deity to dictate it to them?
It goes without saying dictated morals can't be objective by definition. They would have to establish the existence of the diety and the validate the claim it was perfectly moral, and a cursory glance through bible or koran disavows anyone of that idea.
I'm not sure what it says about the theological concept of free will, if our actions are dictated to us, even if we ultimately have a choice how free can it be. It's also a fact we have not only competing theists citing different deities as being able to provide objective morality, but theists coming to wildly different conclusions about what the same deity wants, so how objective a process can it be?
SFT, Royism, and Breezy all claimed at some point their deity offers objective morality, yet also claim that deity can only be understood through subjective interpretations of it's texts, that's a glaring contradiction.
What kind of person does immoral things with impunity? Then again, who decides what is immoral? Is there a way to know with certainty what is right and wrong?
By David Johnson
www:lifehopeandtruth.com/change/sin/are-good-morals-good-enough/
Our decisions about right and wrong
How do you make decisions about right and wrong in your life? Philosophers often proclaim that truth is relative and there are no moral absolutes, so how can we know if the choices we make are right or wrong? How do we know we’re any better than the criminals trying to dupe the unsuspecting and naïve with bogus schemes?
As we become adults and acquire the power to make bigger and more significant decisions, each of us is faced with the challenge of determining what standards will shape those decisions. Judgments must always be based upon some standard, so what standards will guide us as we make the decisions that affect our lives and our relationships?
For a lot of people today, those standards are founded upon human reason alone. If human reason is the highest source of knowledge available, then human concepts of morality should be supreme.
The weakness
But experience shows us that humans don’t all reason in the same way. What one person values can be very different from what another person values. The supporters of the ISIS-led insurgency in the Middle East believe it is moral to torture and brutally murder those who oppose their goals, while the rest of the world is repulsed by their savagery.
If these terrorists consider themselves morally upright while the rest of civilization considers them immoral in the extreme, isn’t it obvious that human assessments of morality are inherently inadequate?
But, wait! I’m human too. Does that mean my assessments of morality may also be inadequate?
What’s missing?
Everyone sees the importance of good morals, but there is a vital concept missing. Without it humans stumble about in spiritual darkness, bruised and battered by spiritual realities they cannot perceive.
The missing concept is embodied in one simple, three-letter word—sin. Some think sin is an antiquated concept with little relevance for the modern world.
Unlike morals, sin is not determined by human reason or by the fluctuations of human society. Sin is determined by an eternal God whose standards transcend the barriers of time and place. What He defined as sin yesterday is still sin today and will be sin tomorrow, and no one will ever be exempt from His standards.
And there is one more aspect of sin that sets it apart from morals. There is a death penalty for committing sin (Romans 6:23), and no one will ever be exempt from that either.
The good news is that the God who defines sin also “desires all men to be saved” (1 Timothy 2:4).
How can we know what is right?
“But,” some will say, “different people worship different gods, and those gods have different standards. How can we know which one is right?” Believe it or not, the true God thought that was a fair question, and He didn’t leave us in the dark with no answer.
God claims that He has the right to tell you and me how we should live our lives and what our standards should be.
But I have a mind and the ability to reason. What right does He have to tell me what I should and should not do?
God gives His credentials
When giving a formal presentation, a speaker often begins by telling the audience why they should listen.
Have you ever considered the beginning of the Bible from that perspective? Many look at Genesis 1 hoping to find scientific or historical evidence of the beginnings of our world. Some of that information is there, but there’s more. Are we overlooking God’s enduring introduction of Himself and His credentials in this passage? Consider in summary what is actually shown.
When we are introduced to the scene, God commanded and stars and planets and light came into existence. Then in verse 3 He simply said, “Let there be light,” and this amazing form of energy that scientists still struggle to understand drove out the darkness that had enshrouded everything an instant before.
As the account moves forward, this great being took inert matter and gave it life and the ability to reproduce consistently according to unique patterns, and plant life grew. He next used more inert matter and created animals with brains and instinct and all of their wonderful and intricate behaviors.
And then He brought into existence human beings and gifted them with the unique ability to think and reason and make moral choices. And He made it clear that these beings—both male and female—were made like Him—in His image and likeness as no other creatures were. And as a final act in that creative week, He set apart and blessed a unique period of time in the weekly cycle so that it would be different from regular time.
God laid all of this evidence before His audience and proclaimed that everything He had created was “very good.” Anyone examining this evidence would properly be in awe of a being who is capable of these things. Man is clearly incapable of any of these feats.
@ JimM
Your proof for all these assertions? YOu have not provided any evidence as you claimed, just more spurious assertions that contradict the solid findings of science...and
And then He brought into existence human beings and gifted them with the unique ability to think and reason and make moral choices
Wrong. As has been explained, and PROVEN, on these forums to other grandiose claimants, Homo Sapiens is NOT unique in its ability to reason, problem solve, use tools, show empathy. Google it.
And has been further explained on these pages, if we are, as you claim "made in god's image" we wouldn't be able to see ourselves while alive, nor interact with the real world.
You are joke JimM. Think things through.
"For a lot of people today, those standards are founded upon human reason alone."
All human decisions are founded upon human reason alone, that's axiomatic. Unless you can demonstrate conclusive objective evidence that a deity exist, and that you know what it wants.
It is also axiomatic that you still couldn't demonstrate that what it wanted was moral, unless of course the ability to decide what's moral is somehow innate in us. In which case why would we need divine diktat?
Anchoring your morals bigoted racist misogynistic ideas from bronze and iron age superstitions doesn't make them objective.
And where does one’s mental health come into the mix? Do their gods use a decision tree to determine culpability for the reward and punishment of a given behavior?
Well if any deity exists it's damning around 2% of all humans who have ever lived to eternal torture, and there is nothing they can do about it, as an IQ of 70 or less means they will never possess the capacity to understand such concepts. God must either hate people who have a sub 70 IQ, or god is recklessly inept. Or of course there is no deity, what to think, what to think...
Theist fail to understand that morality is not objective. If the morals come from God then they are subjective morals.
I guess theist are afraid of subjective Morales. That means that they have to decide what is good or bad when it comes to morals. Also they have to realize that morals also come from the society we live in, that is why we have laws.
@ Cyber
I completely and 100% agree with everything you said in the OP except, “IMO, if a person thinks that just following rules laid down by a more powerful being is behaving morally, they are mistaken.” I do not agree or disagree here since I do not know what exactly what you mean. Can you please clarify?
Cyber "IMO, if a person thinks that just following rules laid down by a more powerful being is behaving morally, they are mistaken.” "
SFT "Can you please clarify?"
Which word is tripping you up?
SfT, Behaving in a certain way only because your gods tell you to do so is not behaving morally, it is merely following the ‘rules’.
Assuming you are not a rapist, why do you not rape? Assuming you are not a murdered, why do you not murder?
@cyber
"SfT, Behaving in a certain way only because your gods tell you to do so is not behaving morally, it is merely following the ‘rules’."
Thank you for clarifying. Your conclusion depends on many factors. If I had to give a 1 word answer to that statement I'd say I disagree. Also, that statement in of itself contradicts the whole morality is subjective argument.
"If I had to give a 1 word answer to that statement I'd say I disagree. "
Now that's fucking priceless. I haven't laughed that hard for days.
There is no objective morality. All a friggin theist has to do is read the bible to see which moral dictates from their god they are not following. The same goes for muslims. Theists wade through their religious texts picking and choosing and reinterpreting the morality of ignorant ancient people to fit a modern society. With that said there are objectively moral choices in some cases and there will always be moral dilemmas. That;s just the planet we live on.
How many times has SFT claimed the koran can only be understood with a subjective interpretation, now it offers objective morality. So a subjective belief a deity exists, a subjective belief he knows what it wants, and all based on a subjective interpretation of an ancient text, and voila, you get objective morality, I think not.
@monkey
While we live on the same planet we apparently in 2 different words. So No, that's the the world you live in. Not everyone.
Not true: We live in one world. When you cross a street, you look both ways. There is nothing you can say about the imaginary world you profess to believe in that has any affect at all on me. Everything I assert from my view affects me just as much as you. If you stare at the sun you will go blind. If you drink poison you will die. If you try to breath water, you are going to die. You agree with everything in my world and then you pose an un-falsifiable, unverifiable, supernatural, mystical layer that is completely unsubstantiated in any way, on top of it.
@CyberLN
If you don't follow society's laws, rules and mores ...then it's you who seems mistaken.
I believe it's the contention of the modest religious adherent to express the inherent moral capacity god has bestowed upon mankind (Hence, they ask the origin of yours.). The clergy's just there to weekly remind them of their responsibilities in this regard. The self-righteous ones however are the ones wielding the hell-fire...give them back all the hell they've raised!
Nothing is more imperfect than the human ideation of perfection.
Quip, you wrote, “If you don't follow society's laws, rules and mores ...then it's you who seems mistaken.”
I think either you missed my point or I wasn’t clear enough. My point is, just following rules for the sake of following rules (usually to avoid punishment or reap reward) is NOT behavior rooted in morality.
Do you not rape (assuming you don’t) because it’s a fucked up thing to do to someone or do you not rape because your god or a law tells you not to do so?
@CyberLN
I understand what you're getting at but my point was that the standard atheist's incentive for moral action is no less at question. That is: Do you only follow the laws, rules and mores simply because of the consequences of not following them may befall you? (Conversely, to receive accolades for being a upstanding citizen?)
I believe the general answer is a combination of both external and internal valuation.
@quip: to express the inherent moral capacity god has bestowed upon mankind
What kind of morality do you get from the god of the Bible, a vicious dictator who urges his master race on to conquest, genocide, and enslavement? How is that different from the morality of the Third Reich? What kind of morality can men and fathers learn from a god who impregnates a woman without consent (like so many other false gods) and allows his own son to be tortured to death?
Your theist morality is all carrot (heaven) and stick (hell), under constant monitoring by the big surveillance camera in the sky. True morality doesn't rely on rewards and punishment. It comes from the refinement of our innate sense of empathy, which is a legacy of our primate evolution.
@Algebe
I'm simply being "god's advocate" for this particular subject. For the sake of general argument, I agree the bible contains (esp. the OT) a lot of heinous acts attributed to god but it also contains some wisdom and insight. To strickly use one at -and for - the exclusion of the other is simply employing a bias. Whichever your take on it.
@quip: to strickly use one at -and for - the exclusion of the other is simply employing a bias.
How can morality from god be absolute if it has to be cherry-picked?
@algebe
That's a question a fire-and-brimstone relgionist is wont to ask. Perhaps the futility of attempting to demonstrate the absolute is where the literal theist ultimately fails in lieu of a more pragmatic (Re: cherry-picked) take on god.
"I believe it's the contention of the modest religious adherent to express the inherent moral capacity god has bestowed upon mankind "
Which is an entirely subjective belief they can demonstrate no objective evidence for.
It is also demonstrably false to claim theists behave more morally than atheists in any objective comparison.
@Sheldon
Being a touch sensitive?
I'm assuming you consider atheists as a part of mankind. Yes?
I didn't imply that claim but....you did!
"I didn't imply that claim but....you did!"
Straw man, i never said you;d claimed it, though religions and the religious frequently do. I certainly never claimed theists were or are more moral than atheists, that's an absurd lie.
"Being a touch sensitive?"
Who is? Why are theists always so cryptic?
Quip "I believe it's the contention of the modest religious adherent to express the inherent moral capacity god has bestowed upon mankind "
"I'm assuming you consider atheists as a part of mankind. Yes?"
Clearly, are seriously saying atheists get their morality fro a deity? If so it was pretty dumb for you to ask where they get their morality, but then this seems to be a trend in your posts, asking dumb questions, as if they're profound introspection.
CyberLN "IMO, if a person thinks that just following rules laid down by a more powerful being is behaving morally, they are mistaken."
Quip "If you don't follow society's laws, rules and mores ...then it's you who seems mistaken."
Nazi Germany had laws, try again.
-------------------------------------------
"I believe it's the contention of the modest religious adherent to express the inherent moral capacity god has bestowed upon mankind (Hence, they ask the origin of yours.)."
I believe they're wrong, so either it is check mate if you're championing subjective beliefs, or you will have to demonstrate some objective evidence for your theistic contention that a deity exists, and has bestowed an "inherent moral capacity upon mankind"
My morality is predicated on a subjective belief, that the collective existence of sentient beings becomes more bearable if we try to promote well being and remove suffering whenever possible.
". The clergy's just there to weekly remind them of their responsibilities in this regard. The self-ri"
For a nominal fee, and to rape the odd kid when no one is looking.
"The self-righteous ones however are the ones wielding the hell-fire...give them back all the hell they've raised!"
Yeah, I mean it;s not as if gentle Jesus meek and mild had anything to say about hellfire is it, oh wait a minute.
There was a time when I had only objective morals dictated to me by powerful beings. Then I graduated from school and left home. I became an adult.
Maybe theists are people who can't bear to live without a parent or teacher objectively telling them what to do and what to think, so they become dependent on Sky-Daddy. While that must be very comforting, it leaves them vulnerable to manipulation by those who claim to understand Sky-Daddy's rules.
If objective morality existed there would be no need for a government that enforces laws.
Umm... yet there is... funny about that.
The Quaran is a piece of shit book, written two hundred years after the death of the imaginary Muhammad, who like Jesus we have no accounts contemporary to his life. We know for a fact the Quaran was not written by Muhammad and we know that when the official version was established all the Quarans that differed from it were destroyed and anyone following the thousands of versions was put to death. Fuck the Quaran. As a holy book it is as big a fail as the Book of Mormon.
Pages