Morality or Obedience?

[Sparko]

I didn't ask them to...

The problem is actually that YOU care. You think that things are actually good or evil and you think that it matters. Yet if you are correct and morals are just individual subjective values, then what you think doesn't matter. If you think that murder is wrong, then you just don't murder. But you have no right to tell someone else that they have to have the same value or if they disagree that they are wrong. For them, murdering could be just fine and you have no basis to tell them otherwise. Even if they decide you will be their next victim. It's their values versus yours. Nobody is right or wrong.

[carpedm9587]

I think we are just talking past one another. I wish we could get a beer and discuss this as it is hard at times to get a point across.

Can you lay out what you think I am saying so I can understand that I am making my point clear?

I think you are saying that your moral framework is grounded in an objectively true moral absolute, which provides a mean by which people can assess their moral codes (i.e., does it or does it not align with the moral absolute). Subjective/relative moral frameworks lack this objectively true moral absolute, so there is no (guaranteed) mechanism for resolving moral disagreements.

And kudos to you for this question. It is the heart of effective communication - and you are the first person I have encountered here who as ever asked me that!

Yes and I agree that our moral code is probably not that different with some exceptions.

But the point is this...grant me for a second that God exists and is all of what you said I would have to believe.

Is this request related to the point you made below?

Just because you don't believe God exists, doesn't mean that God's morals were not hardwired into your brain (so to speak). That is like saying that if you didn't believe in air, you would not be able to breathe.

Not exactly. First of all, air is a physical substance whose existence is easily shown, and absence easily noted. God is not.

Second, the argument that moral codes are "hardwired" appears to fail on the available evidence: if god's moral code were hardwired into our brains, there should be no distinction between any two people's moral frameworks. Clearly, that is not true. There is widespread disagreement on morality related to sexual orientation, sexual activity, abortion, capital punishment, and a wide variety of other topics. I am not seeing any evidence of this "hardwiring," not am I seeing compelling evidence of the existence of this god. Indeed, most people do not believe the Christian god exists. Most people also believe the Muslim god does not exist. Pick a god, and most people believe it does not exist. Most people DO believe in some form of god, but there is wide differentiation on what that god is, or wants.

[Charles]

The problem is actually that YOU care. You think that things are actually good or evil and you think that it matters. Yet if you are correct and morals are just individual subjective values, then what you think doesn't matter. If you think that murder is wrong, then you just don't murder. But you have no right to tell someone else that they have to have the same value or if they disagree that they are wrong. For them, murdering could be just fine and you have no basis to tell them otherwise. Even if they decide you will be their next victim. It's their values versus yours. Nobody is right or wrong.

If you could answer Roy's post, we might start to see how your choice differs from his: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post525207

[carpedm9587]

The problem is actually that YOU care.

I'm not sure what it is you think I care about.

You think that things are actually good or evil and you think that it matters.

Yes.

Yet if you are correct and morals are just individual subjective values, then what you think doesn't matter.

It matters to me.

If you think that murder is wrong, then you just don't murder. But you have no right to tell someone else that they have to have the same value or if they disagree that they are wrong.

Actually, I do. I have a vested interest in other people adopting the same moral code, and encouraging our society to adopt laws to the same effect. If they do not, then the probability that *I* will be deprived of life rises. Since I value my life, and I live in society, I a) extend that respect for life to others around me and b) work to convince others to hold the same moral code.

For them, murdering could be just fine and you have no basis to tell them otherwise.

Actually, I do. It's not guaranteed to convince - but I have the two avenues I put forward earlier. If neither works, than the disconnect is resolved in one of the three ways already described: ignore, isolate/separate, contend.

Even if they decide you will be their next victim. It's their values versus yours. Nobody is right or wrong.

Nobody is "absolutely" or "objectively" right or wrong. But we already know that - we're talking about subjective/relative morality. So you're not really doing anything but re-asserting the definition of subjective/objective. You haven't actually said anything about morality.

[Sparko]

Second, the argument that moral codes are "hardwired" appears to fail on the available evidence: if god's moral code were hardwired into our brains, there should be no distinction between any two people's moral frameworks. Clearly, that is not true. There is widespread disagreement on morality related to sexual orientation, sexual activity, abortion, capital punishment, and a wide variety of other topics. I am not seeing any evidence of this "hardwiring," not am I seeing compelling evidence of the existence of this god. Indeed, most people do not believe the Christian god exists. Most people also believe the Muslim god does not exist. Pick a god, and most people believe it does not exist. Most people DO believe in some form of god, but there is wide differentiation on what that god is, or wants.

Pardon me for jumping in on your conversation with Element771.

But Christians believe that humans are fallen. Thus as fallen, sinners, our "hard-wired" moral code is a bit screwed up, some more than others. But even those who do evil, unless they are mentally ill, do know that they are doing evil at some level. Someone murdering his wife knows it is wrong but thinks it is necessary for some twisted reason, for example.

[carpedm9587]

Pardon me for jumping in on your conversation with Element771.

No problem. All welcome.

But Christians believe that humans are fallen. Thus as fallen, sinners, our "hard-wired" moral code is a bit screwed up, some more than others. But even those who do evil, unless they are mentally ill, do know that they are doing evil at some level. Someone murdering his wife knows it is wrong but thinks it is necessary for some twisted reason, for example.

Yeah, I am familiar with the theology. However, I can assure you that when I speak out in defense of homosexuality being morally neutral, there is no part of me (even a small part) that thinks I am advocating for evil. Every fiber of my being says that sexual activity and love is not limited by what is or is not dangling between one's legs, anymore than it is limited by the color of our skin or the nation of our birth or the religion of our forefathers. There are many other places where I part company with the Christian moral code - without one iota of "I know I'm doing wrong."

And for the rest, what you see as "knows it is wrong" is easily explained in the subjective/relative worldview as a) someone who is acting out of sync with their own moral code, or b) someone who is acting out of sync with the moral code they know most people have/use. In a subjective moral framework, the former is more telling. The latter is more about peer pressure than anything else.

[element771]

I think you are saying that your moral framework is grounded in an objectively true moral absolute, which provides a mean by which people can assess their moral codes (i.e., does it or does it not align with the moral absolute). Subjective/relative moral frameworks lack this objectively true moral absolute, so there is no (guaranteed) mechanism for resolving moral disagreements.

And kudos to you for this question. It is the heart of effective communication - and you are the first person I have encountered here who as ever asked me that!

Well I appreciate that. I always assumed that people here are primarily interested in effective communication. I try my best to get along with and respect everyone...albeit to varying degrees of success.

Next question...Can you specifically document what you disagree with regarding you assessment of what I am saying.

Is this request related to the point you made below?

Yes.

Not exactly. First of all, air is a physical substance whose existence is easily shown, and absence easily noted. God is not.

Right but the existence of God / air is not the point that I am getting at. It is that not believing in air would not prohibit you from breathing.

Second, the argument that moral codes are "hardwired" appears to fail on the available evidence: if god's moral code were hardwired into our brains, there should be no distinction between any two people's moral frameworks. Clearly, that is not true. There is widespread disagreement on morality related to sexual orientation, sexual activity, abortion, capital punishment, and a wide variety of other topics. I am not seeing any evidence of this "hardwiring," not am I seeing compelling evidence of the existence of this god. Indeed, most people do not believe the Christian god exists. Most people also believe the Muslim god does not exist. Pick a god, and most people believe it does not exist. Most people DO believe in some form of god, but there is wide differentiation on what that god is, or wants.

Right but the hardwired transmission would not be perfect of course. We are individuals with different amounts of cognitive power, life experiences, etc. Even if these morals are hard wired perfectly, our own brain has to interpret them. I also am not suggesting that God just intervened and put these morals into our brains. They would have come about through normal evolutionary processes. Also, Sparko offered another issue with humans and their ideas of morality. Sin gets in the way of a lot of our thinking.

I understand that not everyone believes in the Christian God / Muslim God / etc. However, our beliefs have more in common than they differ concerning the overall characteristics of a deity. It may just be every cultures way of describing the indescribable. If Christianity is not true...that doesn't lead one to atheism necessarily. I could be wrong that Jesus was the son of God and there still be a God which these objective morals are grounded.

[carpedm9587]

Well I appreciate that. I always assumed that people here are primarily interested in effective communication. I try my best to get along with and respect everyone...albeit to varying degrees of success.

IMO, your level of success is high. You and I have different views, obviously, but I have never seen you resort to ridicule or disparagement in making your points. I have not seen you accuse others of one personality flaw or another. Indeed, you are more successful at it than I. I could take a lesson (or three ).

Next question...Can you specifically document what you disagree with regarding you assessment of what I am saying.

I think your position simply reaffirms the meaning of "subjective" and "objective." It does not address the consequences for morality. We already know that subjective frameworks lack an objective basis. That's what it means to be subjective. You (and Seer) have yet to indicate why that is a bad thing. You simply keep pointing, over and over, to the reality.

My car color analogy was intended to underscore this. If we disagree on the color of my car, you will not be able to show me that I am wrong by simply asserting, over and over, that "green is not blue." Unfortunately (for you and Seer), I don't think this is possible. You have (arbitrarily) decided that moral frameworks need to be objective, so your only objection to subjective/relative moral frameworks is that they are not.

Seer does this by trying to equate moral frameworks with mathematical ones, suggesting that mathematics would make no sense if there was no objective truth. Unfortunately (for him) this analogy fails. It fails because the only thing mathematics and morality have in common (in Seer's argument) is objectivity. So he is forcing an analogy to make a point. As I noted to him, it would be as if I said, "Turtles are like cars - cars have trunks, so turtles have trunks." Anyone looking at this would say, "huh?" Cars have nothing to do with turtles - you're just equating the two so you can claim turtles have trunks." Likewise, morality and mathematics have nothing in common - Seer is simply claiming they do so he can assert that morality has to be objective to be meaningful.

A better analogy for morality is law. Both have to do with actions. Both involve intent. Both separate "ought" actions from "ought not" actions. Law is clearly subjective/relative. Every community/country/society/group derives its own laws. No one suggests that because Vermont has legalized pot and Alabama has not, that the legal system is "irrational." So why is this claim made for morality?

Yes.

Right but the existence of God / air is not the point that I am getting at. It is that not believing in air would not prohibit you from breathing.

I don't think I suggested otherwise. Clearly, if god exists, my belief that he/she/it does not is wrong. Likewise, if god does not exist, you believe that he/she/it does is wrong. The existence/nonexistence of god is not changed by our beliefs. We seem to be on an equal footing here - with one exception.

Even if this god exists, this god (as a sentient being) has a subjective moral code. I, as a sentient being, have a subjective moral code. It is my subjective decision to value this being, and decide to align my moral code to theirs. Morality is intrinsically individualized. We each derive our moral codes on the basis of what we value. From there, if the moral codes do not align, we end up where I described before: ignore, isolate/separate, contend.

In short, if your god DOES exist, and your god requires me to declare that homosexual activity is immoral, every fiber of my being screams that it is not. The arguments for why it is make no sense (to me). So I will reject this claim from this god. As an all powerful being, this creature has the power to ignore me (shunning), isolate/separate (exclude me from the flock) me, or even successfully contend with me (hell, etc.). But he/she does NOT have the power to overwrite my moral sense - not without completely undermining the idea of morality - which requires personal freedom of choice.

Right but the hardwired transmission would not be perfect of course. We are individuals with different amounts of cognitive power, life experiences, etc. Even if these morals are hard wired perfectly, our own brain has to interpret them. I also am not suggesting that God just intervened and put these morals into our brains. They would have come about through normal evolutionary processes. Also, Sparko offered another issue with humans and their ideas of morality. Sin gets in the way of a lot of our thinking.

I have to admit that this is mostly confusing to me. I am familiar with the theology - but I am also familiar with computers. If something is hardwired - then it is fixed - that is all the system can do. If the system can override the directive - then it is not hardwired. Mixed metaphors, perhaps?

I understand that not everyone believes in the Christian God / Muslim God / etc. However, our beliefs have more in common than they differ concerning the overall characteristics of a deity. It may just be every cultures way of describing the indescribable. If Christianity is not true...that doesn't lead one to atheism necessarily. I could be wrong that Jesus was the son of God and there still be a God which these objective morals are grounded.

Except that I think the preponderence of the evidence suggests that gods are ideas created by humans, not the other way around.

[37818]

I'm not following any of that...

The point of argument being, evil is always against some good. Without the good evil is not possible against it. Truth is a good. Those who would use truth to do harm - that is evil.

[element771]

IMO, your level of success is high. You and I have different views, obviously, but I have never seen you resort to ridicule or disparagement in making your points. I have not seen you accuse others of one personality flaw or another. Indeed, you are more successful at it than I. I could take a lesson (or three ).

Well thanks for that. I have never had an issue with our conversations.

I think your position simply reaffirms the meaning of "subjective" and "objective." It does not address the consequences for morality. We already know that subjective frameworks lack an objective basis. That's what it means to be subjective. You (and Seer) have yet to indicate why that is a bad thing. You simply keep pointing, over and over, to the reality.

The bad thing for me is that subjectivity leads one to not be able to tell someone else that they are wrong.

My car color analogy was intended to underscore this. If we disagree on the color of my car, you will not be able to show me that I am wrong by simply asserting, over and over, that "green is not blue." Unfortunately (for you and Seer), I don't think this is possible. You have (arbitrarily) decided that moral frameworks need to be objective, so your only objection to subjective/relative moral frameworks is that they are not.

That is not true unless we ascribe different names to the same wavelength of light. For example, 475nm for green for you but blue for me. But that is ultimately just the word used for that wavelength. But this may be what you are getting at. I have always wondered if my red is the same as everyone else's red.

A better analogy for morality is law. Both have to do with actions. Both involve intent. Both separate "ought" actions from "ought not" actions. Law is clearly subjective/relative. Every community/country/society/group derives its own laws. No one suggests that because Vermont has legalized pot and Alabama has not, that the legal system is "irrational." So why is this claim made for morality?

Laws do not have an ought associated with them. It is a fact not an ought. If you speed, you will get a ticket. I don't feel guilty if I speed but I would feel guilty if my speeding caused harm to someone else.

Even if this god exists, this god (as a sentient being) has a subjective moral code.

I don't agree with this in the least. God doesn't have a subjective moral code. This seems to be a rehash of the euthyphro dilemma which has been addressed for quite a long time now.

In short, if your god DOES exist, and your god requires me to declare that homosexual activity is immoral, every fiber of my being screams that it is not. The arguments for why it is make no sense (to me). So I will reject this claim from this god. As an all powerful being, this creature has the power to ignore me (shunning), isolate/separate (exclude me from the flock) me, or even successfully contend with me (hell, etc.). But he/she does NOT have the power to overwrite my moral sense - not without completely undermining the idea of morality - which requires personal freedom of choice.

I agree with this...

If homosexuality of immoral from God's perspective then you are going against this objective morality. If homosexuality is not immoral from God's perspective, then your senses are fine.

There could be reasons that you don't understand why God's stance on this is that it is immoral or this type of immorailty may not be high on God's list of sins. We all sin and we all fail to repent of our sins. If homosexuality is a sin, then it isn't a "special sin". I don't know how God will judge homosexuals, that is not for me to decide. I am, however, commanded by Jesus to love everyone and treat others like I would like to be treated. I am also commanded not to judge others behaviors. This is how I try to live my life.

I have to admit that this is mostly confusing to me. I am familiar with the theology - but I am also familiar with computers. If something is hardwired - then it is fixed - that is all the system can do. If the system can override the directive - then it is not hardwired. Mixed metaphors, perhaps?

yeah sorry about that. Basically it says that even if we knew the exact morality of God, the fact that we are fallen stops us from practicing this morality or maybe even being able to know the exact nature in the first place.

Except that I think the preponderence of the evidence suggests that gods are ideas created by humans, not the other way around.

Sure but I obviously differ from you on that one. I think that the preponderance of evidence suggests that God exists. I choose to accept that Jesus was the son of God. I may be wrong of course but that it what my examination of the evidence tells me. I don't have a silver bullet but it is the accumulation of things that leads me to God existing as inference to the best explanation.

[carpedm9587]

Well thanks for that. I have never had an issue with our conversations.

Likewise.

The bad thing for me is that subjectivity leads one to not be able to tell someone else that they are wrong.

Which is the very definition of "subjective."

That is not true unless we ascribe different names to the same wavelength of light. For example, 475nm for green for you but blue for me. But that is ultimately just the word used for that wavelength. But this may be what you are getting at. I have always wondered if my red is the same as everyone else's red.

If you tell me, "your car reflects light at Xnm, which is universally defined as 'blue' " - now you are making a case for the color of my car being blue, not green. But if you simply assert, over and over, that "green is not blue," I think we would both agree that you are not making a case for the color of my car.

Likewise, if you assert over and over again that "subjective moral frameworks are not objective," you are reaffirming that "subjective" and "objective" don't mean the same thing - but you aren't saying anything about morality.

Laws do not have an ought associated with them. It is a fact not an ought. If you speed, you will get a ticket. I don't feel guilty if I speed but I would feel guilty if my speeding caused harm to someone else.

I have to disagree. What is the difference between: "you ought not speed - and here is the punishment if you do" - and "you ought not engage in homosexual acts, and here is the punishment if you do?"

The first is legal. The second is moral. And the difference is...?

I don't agree with this in the least. God doesn't have a subjective moral code. This seems to be a rehash of the euthyphro dilemma which has been addressed for quite a long time now.

I am not surprised, but it remains the reality. Morality is how a sentient being sorts actions into "ought" and "ought not." That is the very purpose of morality. If god exists, and is sentient, then this god also sorts actions into "ought" and "ought not." If this is not true, then this god is subject to a moral code that transcends itself - which seems an odd position to take.

I agree with this...

If homosexuality of immoral from God's perspective then you are going against this objective morality. If homosexuality is not immoral from God's perspective, then your senses are fine.

But if my moral sense is that this god is wrong - what makes this god's moral sense any more right than mine?

There could be reasons that you don't understand why God's stance on this is that it is immoral or this type of immorailty may not be high on God's list of sins. We all sin and we all fail to repent of our sins. If homosexuality is a sin, then it isn't a "special sin". I don't know how God will judge homosexuals, that is not for me to decide. I am, however, commanded by Jesus to love everyone and treat others like I would like to be treated. I am also commanded not to judge others behaviors. This is how I try to live my life.

I believe that - and respect that. But if this god declares homosexuality wrong, and they want others to follow this moral code, than they, like me, need to make the case. If they do not - and simply expect me to "obey" because they are god, then we don't truly have morality - we have obedience out of fear (or possibly worship). That leads us to following anyone/anything that is more powerful that ourselves - for no other reason than they are more powerful.

yeah sorry about that. Basically it says that even if we knew the exact morality of God, the fact that we are fallen stops us from practicing this morality or maybe even being able to know the exact nature in the first place.

So what happened to "hardwired?"

Sure but I obviously differ from you on that one. I think that the preponderance of evidence suggests that God exists. I choose to accept that Jesus was the son of God. I may be wrong of course but that it what my examination of the evidence tells me. I don't have a silver bullet but it is the accumulation of things that leads me to God existing as inference to the best explanation.

And on that we will probably have to agree to disagree. While I believed as you do for many years - I eventually came to the realization that I was adopting beliefs without adequate substance - and I had to let them go. Perhaps you have found adequate substance and I have simply missed it. Or, perhaps you have accepted substance where none exists and have not seen it yet. It is not clear to me we can resolve that.

What we CAN do is treat one another as honest people following the evidence as best we can. From there, if there is a god, we have to hope that this god values honesty and integrity. If not...I think you and.or I might be screwed...

[carpedm9587]

The point of argument being, evil is always against some good. Without the good evil is not possible against it. Truth is a good. Those who would use truth to do harm - that is evil.

Agreed.

[element771]

Likewise, if you assert over and over again that "subjective moral frameworks are not objective," you are reaffirming that "subjective" and "objective" don't mean the same thing - but you aren't saying anything about morality.

How am I not saying anything about morality?

I have to disagree. What is the difference between: "you ought not speed - and here is the punishment if you do" - and "you ought not engage in homosexual acts, and here is the punishment if you do?"

The first is legal. The second is moral. And the difference is...?

Because ought is defined as duty or correctness. Not speeding is not a duty that I should do because of its moral implications. I don't speed because I don't want a ticket. I don't feel guilty for not speeding which also speaks towards the is / ought distinction.

I am not surprised, but it remains the reality. Morality is how a sentient being sorts actions into "ought" and "ought not." That is the very purpose of morality. If god exists, and is sentient, then this god also sorts actions into "ought" and "ought not." If this is not true, then this god is subject to a moral code that transcends itself - which seems an odd position to take.

Again this is the Euthyphro dilemma which has been addressed many many times.

But if my moral sense is that this god is wrong - what makes this god's moral sense any more right than mine?

Well unless you are all knowing, powerful, loving, and created the entire universe...I would think that the answer to that question is a tad obvious.

I believe that - and respect that. But if this god declares homosexuality wrong, and they want others to follow this moral code, than they, like me, need to make the case. If they do not - and simply expect me to "obey" because they are god, then we don't truly have morality - we have obedience out of fear (or possibly worship). That leads us to following anyone/anything that is more powerful that ourselves - for no other reason than they are more powerful.

I guess that is where you and I differ. If the creator of the natural world tells me not to do something, I am going to listen. I don't do this out of fear, I do this out of love, appreciation for this world, and the blessings that he has bestowed on me. I trust or have faith that he knows best.

Afterall, I don't have to convince my kids that going to bed at a decent time is best for them. That doesn't mean they don't fight back and say that it isn't fair. However, when they get older...they will understand why I set the rules that way.

So what happened to "hardwired?"

Bad analogy

And on that we will probably have to agree to disagree. While I believed as you do for many years - I eventually came to the realization that I was adopting beliefs without adequate substance - and I had to let them go. Perhaps you have found adequate substance and I have simply missed it. Or, perhaps you have accepted substance where none exists and have not seen it yet. It is not clear to me we can resolve that.

Well I have been studying (not formally) theology and philosophy for about 10 years and feel that there is adequate substance.

What we CAN do is treat one another as honest people following the evidence as best we can. From there, if there is a god, we have to hope that this god values honesty and integrity. If not...I think you and.or I might be screwed...

One can only hope.

[seer]

It is inherently immoral in mine.

Well you are perfectly free to make stuff up if you wish, but that does not actually make in inherently wrong.

[carpedm9587]

How am I not saying anything about morality?

I gave you a simple analogy for this. If I claim my car is green and you claim it is blue, you are not saying anything about the color of my car if you keep insisting that green is not blue. You are merely reaffirming that the colors are different. "Green is not blue" does not say anything about my car. Likewise, if I say morality is subjective, and you think it is objective, you are not saying anything about morality if all you keep asserting is that "a subjective thing is not objective." When you and Seer repeat, over and over, that a subjective moral framework has no objective basis for assessment - you are merely reaffirming that subjective things are not objective. We all agree about that. You have not, however, said anything about morality.

Because ought is defined as duty or correctness. Not speeding is not a duty that I should do because of its moral implications. I don't speed because I don't want a ticket. I don't feel guilty for not speeding which also speaks towards the is / ought distinction.

Then I suggest your legal sensitivity is "authoritarian," or based on fear of punishment. If that is true, I suspect your moral framework probably is as well.

I do not speed because I assume that the speed sign reflects the safe-speed as reflected by the engineering of the road. If I exceed it, I increase the risk to myself and the other people on the road. There are times when other factors lead me to take that calculated risk (i.e., a sick or injured person in the car, the time I had a woman in labor in the car, etc.), but usually it is about weighing the safety of the higher speed against the safety of the posted speed.

Again this is the Euthyphro dilemma which has been addressed many many times.

I have to admit I am not familiar with that language, and I am too tired tonight to start looking. Perhaps another time.

Well unless you are all knowing, powerful, loving, and created the entire universe...I would think that the answer to that question is a tad obvious.

First, many of the attributes ascribed to this god are in conflict; one of the many reasons I don't believe it exists. Second, why does any of that guarantee "moral?"

I guess that is where you and I differ. If the creator of the natural world tells me not to do something, I am going to listen. I don't do this out of fear, I do this out of love, appreciation for this world, and the blessings that he has bestowed on me. I trust or have faith that he knows best.

Afterall, I don't have to convince my kids that going to bed at a decent time is best for them. That doesn't mean they don't fight back and say that it isn't fair. However, when they get older...they will understand why I set the rules that way.

You may be willing to do that, but since I do not believe such a being exists, what I am actually being asked to do is suspend my own moral authority in favor of the interpretation (by other people) of a moral code documwented (by other people) in this or that holy book (in this case, the Christian bible). I am not willing to abdicate my responsibility that way.

As for the analogy of children - I am not a child. I am a sentient, reasoning, rational, adult male. As a parent, when my children asked "why," I always answered them - and it was not "because I said so." I always encouraged them to question, even challenge. I held myself to the standard, "if I cannot explain it to them - then maybe I need to take a second look at why I'm doing it." I would hold a god to the same standard. If this god is not willing to explain exactly why X is immoral, then they will have to deal with the fact that I may not see it as immoral.

And if this god exists and sees fit to punish me for obeying my conscience - so be it. There is something somewhat off about punishing someone for doing what they believe to be right when you have been unwilling to provide them the information to see it otherwise.

Bad analogy

Happens to me all the time...

Well I have been studying (not formally) theology and philosophy for about 10 years and feel that there is adequate substance.

Then I wish you well on your journey. Perhaps, with continued study, you will eventually come to find what I have found. Perhaps not. Either way - if you are a man of conscience (which you seem to be), I cannot see that making a big difference. We will all go to our graves believing at least a few untrue things.

One can only hope.

Indeed...