Is God Immoral?

[seer]

So you disagree with my statement that “morality is concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour”? Really”! So what constitutes a ‘moral force’ in your view, obeying God? But that’s exactly what ISIS is doing.

No Tass, I don't disagree that morality is concerned with principles of right and wrong. That is exactly what religions deal with. I object to your arbitrary distinction of what constitutes a moral force. Religion certainly does.

So ISIS, by slaughtering those who disagree with them in the name of their God, is an example of religion being a moral force in your view?

Of course Islam is a moral force in this world - to deny that would be to deny an obvious fact. Whether you or I agree with those moral principles is another story.

Actually, Spinoza was a Deist as were many Enlightenment thinkers including the American Founding Fathers. But this is irrelevant to the point being made, namely that the principles established during The Age of Enlightenment emphasized reason, analysis, and individualism in contrast to obedience to traditional lines of authority.

Yes, Spinoza may have been a Deist, though that is not so clear. But I also listed known Christians like Locke, Newton, Descartes, et al. And as we have discussed in the past the America Founders were not generally deists, there were only two Founders, that I know of who were Deists.

Thus it's interesting then that the "decidedly Christian" Enlightenment figures and their successors have done more to undermine religion than any other single movement.

Perhaps, but history is not finished. Who knows, perhaps the majority of mankind will be worshiping Allah in the not so distant future. Men seem to be genetically disposed to belief in a higher power, perhaps it is necessary for survival and our overall well being.

No. What SOCIAL animals like us do is maintain cohesive communities as their primary goal, not murder each other. “This is how the evolutionary process created us to think and act”, to quote you.

Tass, ISIS is acting and thinking like they do because that is how the evolutionary process created them to think and act - do you deny that?

The Enlightenment figures may not have agreed upon religious or moral views but they all agreed with the emphasis placed upon reason, analysis, and individualism as opposed to mere obedience to authority of the sort demanded by the various religions. This was the point being made.

Again that is just false, men like Locke, Newton, Descartes did not reject religious authority out of hand. Neither did the Founding Fathers in America. But the point was that you spoke of "Enlightenment values." There was no such consistent set of moral values coming out of the Enlightenment.

[Tassman]

No Tass, I don't disagree that morality is concerned with principles of right and wrong. That is exactly what religions deal with. I object to your arbitrary distinction of what constitutes a moral force. Religion certainly does.

Of course Islam is a moral force in this world - to deny that would be to deny an obvious fact. Whether you or I agree with those moral principles is another story.

Usually the term “moral force” refers to ‘right’ behaviour as opposed to ‘wrong’ behaviour. E.g. we don’t usually refer to the “moral force" of the genocide committed by Serbian Orthodox Christians on Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina – we call it genocide. And we don’t refer to the “moral force” exercise by Indonesian Muslims in 2002 when they slaughtered thousands of East Timorese Christians in the name of Islam – we call it religious cleansing. You have stripped “moral force” of its meaning.

Yes, Spinoza may have been a Deist, though that is not so clear. But I also listed known Christians like Locke, Newton, Descartes, et al. And as we have discussed in the past the America Founders were not generally deists, there were only two Founders, that I know of who were Deists.

This is irrelevant to the point being made, namely that the principles established during The Age of Enlightenment emphasized reason, analysis, and individualism in contrast to blind obedience to traditional lines of authority.

Perhaps, but history is not finished. Who knows, perhaps the majority of mankind will be worshiping Allah in the not so distant future. Men seem to be genetically disposed to belief in a higher power, perhaps it is necessary for survival and our overall well being.

Yes, religion offers a survival advantage at a tribal level because believing in a god, any god, provides an explanation for our universe and our world and our place in it; not that it’s necessarily the correct explanation. Religion can also organize cooperative behaviour and reinforce existing moral structures enforce conformist values. We see this in ISIS, just as we saw it in tribal Israel under Moses, i.e. a strict moral code within the tribe and slaughter of the infidels (or Canaanites) outside it.

But history shows that religion is destructive in a multicultural world. There can be no way to resolve conflicts about moral issues when members of competing religions hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive. The only possible solution is conquest and the enforced imposition of the “one true religion” upon the rest of the hapless population – as per ISIS or the hoped for domination by the Christian Reconstructionists.

Tass, ISIS is acting and thinking like they do because that is how the evolutionary process created them to think and act - do you deny that?

Natural Selection has predisposed us toward certain behaviours such as altruism, reciprocal altruism, and indirect altruism, and to reveal the level of commitment to cooperation among members of a social community. This is not in doubt. We see this in tribal cultures such as ISIS with their “in” groups and “out” groups”. Conversely, the developed world has expanded the values of tribalism to encompass all people.

Again that is just false, men like Locke, Newton, Descartes did not reject religious authority out of hand. Neither did the Founding Fathers in America. But the point was that you spoke of "Enlightenment values." There was no such consistent set of moral values coming out of the Enlightenment.

I didn't say there was, you continue to misrepresent me. I spoke of the secular Enlightenment values that emphasize reason, analysis, and individualism as opposed to mere acceptance of authority of the sort demanded by the various religions and their holy books.

[seer]

Usually the term “moral force” refers to ‘right’ behaviour as opposed to ‘wrong’ behaviour. E.g. we don’t usually refer to the “moral force" of the genocide committed by Serbian Orthodox Christians on Muslims in Bosnia-Herzegovina – we call it genocide. And we don’t refer to the “moral force” exercise by Indonesian Muslims in 2002 when they slaughtered thousands of East Timorese Christians in the name of Islam – we call it religious cleansing. You have stripped “moral force” of its meaning.

You could say then a moral force for good. But this is the point - ISIS does believe they are doing good, just as the Communists did in the last century. Now we may not agree with their moral principles, but hey you like Lobster I like Steak.

This is irrelevant to the point being made, namely that the principles established during The Age of Enlightenment emphasized reason, analysis, and individualism in contrast to blind obedience to traditional lines of authority.

Except now we are expected to kowtow to the new priest class of Science.

But history shows that religion is destructive in a multicultural world. There can be no way to resolve conflicts about moral issues when members of competing religions hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive. The only possible solution is conquest and the enforced imposition of the “one true religion” upon the rest of the hapless population – as per ISIS or the hoped for domination by the Christian Reconstructionists.

Except, religion may actually be winning the battle. Perhaps multiculturalism will largely be a thing of the past.

Natural Selection has predisposed us toward certain behaviours such as altruism, reciprocal altruism, and indirect altruism, and to reveal the level of commitment to cooperation among members of a social community. This is not in doubt. We see this in tribal cultures such as ISIS with their “in” groups and “out” groups”. Conversely, the developed world has expanded the values of tribalism to encompass all people.

Again Tass, do you deny that groups like ISIS are thinking and acting the way the evolutionary process created them to think and act?

I didn't say there was, you continue to misrepresent me. I spoke of the secular Enlightenment values that emphasize reason, analysis, and individualism as opposed to mere acceptance of authority of the sort demanded by the various religions and their holy books.

No Tass, it was never so black and white - not even when it came emphasizing reason or rejecting religious authority.

[Tassman]

You could say then a moral force for good.

Precisely my point! A “moral force”: is generally considered to be a force for the good as opposed to a force for ill.

But this is the point - ISIS does believe they are doing good, just as the Communists did in the last century. Now we may not agree with their moral principles...

…except that ISIS, as with many fundamentalist religions, promotes intolerance, exacerbates ethnic divisions, and impedes social progress. This is considered by general consensus to be a force for ill, not for good. But it's inevitable with a belief system the adherents “know” to be absolutely right. Because, by definition, all other belief systems must be wrong and therefore to be destroyed in God's name.

but hey you like Lobster I like Steak.

Fine, provided you don't enforce your preference for steak on the rest of us in the name of God.

Except now we are expected to kowtow to the new priest class of Science.

Nonsense! There’s a significant difference between religious priests and scientists, namely the former peddle alleged “revealed truths”, whereas the latter engage in research to acquire tested evidence based knowledge.

Except, religion may actually be winning the battle. Perhaps multiculturalism will largely be a thing of the past.

True, we could all be under ISIS or a Christian Theonomy in a decade or so. History shows that religion is destructive in a multicultural world given that there is no way to resolve conflicts about moral issues when members of competing religions hold absolute beliefs which are mutually exclusive.

The only possible solutions, as ISIS knows, are conquest and the enforced imposition of the “one true religion” upon the rest of the population come what may. Thus, if you are correct, we are heading for a new Dark Age of superstition and ignorance.

Again Tass, do you deny that groups like ISIS are thinking and acting the way the evolutionary process created them to think and act?

To take your implied Argument from Incredulity Fallacy seriously:

Yes and no. ISIS has reverted to a form of primitive tribalism of a sort that the developed world has largely grown beyond. The educated West has expanded the values of tribalism, i.e. loyalty to the group and social cohesion within the group, to encompass all people on the planet, hence concepts such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Whereas groups like ISIS, who just “know” they worship the one true God are engaged in a Holy War just as Moses did in the conquest of Canaan, or the Muslim conquests of the 7th and 8th centuries, or the Christian Crusades and the Wars of Religion in the 16th and 17th centuries. In short Holy Wars justified by differences in religion.

No Tass, it was never so black and white - not even when it came emphasizing reason or rejecting religious authority.

Sigh! The Enlightenment “was a European intellectual movement of the late 17th and 18th centuries emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition”. Wiki
The Enlightenment “challenged the authority of institutions that were deeply rooted in society, such as the Catholic Church; there was much talk of ways to reform society with toleration, science and skepticism.” Oxford Dictionary.

[seer]

Precisely my point! A “moral force”: is generally considered to be a force for the good as opposed to a force for ill.

Of course, that is your opinion, it may even be my opinion. But it is not the opinion of ISIS, or the Communists. And since there can be no objective moral rule or standard in your universe no ethical opinion is more correct or valid than its opposite. And you are presenting an argumentum ad populum. Which as you know is a fallacy

…except that ISIS, as with many fundamentalist religions, promotes intolerance, exacerbates ethnic divisions, and impedes social progress. This is considered by general consensus to be a force for ill, not for good. But it's inevitable with a belief system the adherents “know” to be absolutely right. Because, by definition, all other belief systems must be wrong and therefore to be destroyed in God's name.

The point is Tass, so what? I mean really. This is merely nature in action. Why do you hate nature so much?

[Tassman]

Of course, that is your opinion, it may even be my opinion. But it is not the opinion of ISIS, or the Communists. And since there can be no objective moral rule or standard in your universe no ethical opinion is more correct or valid than its opposite. And you are presenting an argumentum ad populum. Which as you know is a fallacy

Nonsense! There are moral rules and standards in the world and they are based upon the evolved instincts of Homo sapiens as social animals to maintain cohesive communities.

The point is Tass, so what? I mean really. This is merely nature in action. Why do you hate nature so much?

This is merely “nature in action” at a tribal level as repeatedly stated. ISIS has reverted to a form of primitive tribalism of a sort that the developed world has largely grown beyond. The educated West has expanded the values of tribalism, i.e. loyalty to the group and social cohesion within the group, to encompass all people on the planet, hence concepts such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This too is “nature in action.” Why do you misrepresent nature so much?

[seer]

Nonsense! There are moral rules and standards in the world and they are based upon the evolved instincts of Homo sapiens as social animals to maintain cohesive communities.

Yes and ISIS is attempting to build a cohesive community, just as the murderous Communists of the last century. So what is your point?


[/quote]This is merely “nature in action” at a tribal level as repeatedly stated. ISIS has reverted to a form of primitive tribalism of a sort that the developed world has largely grown beyond. The educated West has expanded the values of tribalism, i.e. loyalty to the group and social cohesion within the group, to encompass all people on the planet, hence concepts such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This too is “nature in action.” Why do you misrepresent nature so much?[/QUOTE]

This is just silly Tass. There is no growing beyond in the evolutionary process, there is only what works. And ISIS has not reverted to anything - they are just acting as nature created them to act. Really, why do you hate nature so much? Do you get your panties in a wad when one group of chimps kill another group of chimps? You are like a fish complaining that he is wet - it makes no sense. The ISIS fighters have no choice in what they are doing, they are determined by the evolutionary process to do what they are doing.

[MaxVel]

I repeat: “What is “morally good” is the behaviour which best enables the human ‘machine’ to function as nature equipped it to function via Natural Selection. That is as cooperative social animals living among others of the species in cohesive, supportive communities. Whatever best achieves this end and best serves the needs of individuals within the community is what communities, and individuals within communities, take into account when weighing different moral values against each other.

You have partially answered my first question, but not answered my second.

I'm asking, on your view of morality:

(1) How do we weigh differing moral values? When two group's moral values differ, how do we decide which ones are right?

(2) What is the basis for the moral force of values? What grounds the 'ought' in a moral value? Why ought we practice fairness, or value equality, etc?

Your answer to (1) seems to be "...the behaviour which best enables the human ‘machine’ to function as nature equipped it to function via Natural Selection. That is as cooperative social animals living among others of the species in cohesive, supportive communities."

So presumably, a community can decide for itself what it's particular moral values are - or it can take the moral values it has (as a result of Natural Selection) as being good ones. These would be values that help the community survive, and it's members pass on their genes to the next generation. Correct?

[JimL]

You have partially answered my first question, but not answered my second.




Your answer to (1) seems to be "...the behaviour which best enables the human ‘machine’ to function as nature equipped it to function via Natural Selection. That is as cooperative social animals living among others of the species in cohesive, supportive communities."

So presumably, a community can decide for itself what it's particular moral values are - or it can take the moral values it has (as a result of Natural Selection) as being good ones. These would be values that help the community survive, and it's members pass on their genes to the next generation. Correct?

Because to do other than that which we see as moral for ourselves would be hypocritical then to do to others. The tyrant, the murderer, the thief, the rapist etc. etc. would not have done to himself what he would do unto others therefore he is immoral. To treat others the way you expect and wish to be treated yourself is what morality is. A society which incorporates these values is a society in which individuals are able to live together in peaceful co-existence and the ones that do not will live in oppression and chaos. Morals need no objective reality in their own right in order that they function as a tool for the good of both the individual and the society as a whole.

[seer]

Because to do other than that which we see as moral for ourselves would be hypocritical then to do to others.

So what? Why is hypocrisy objectively wrong?

[JimL]

So what? Why is hypocrisy objectively wrong?

Never said it was objectively wrong, never claimed anything to be objectively right or wrong. To do unto others as you would have done unto you is not an objective moral law, but it is objective in the sense that it works for the good of both yourself and the other, and so for the good of society as a whole. Morality is not about ultimate justice, its about what is in your best interests as an individual is therefore also in your neighbors best interests as an individual, ergo in the best interests of society as a whole.

[seer]

Morality is not about ultimate justice, its about what is in your best interests as an individual is therefore also in your neighbors best interests as an individual, ergo in the best interests of society as a whole.

Well, that is your opinion, which is no more valid or correct than the opinion of ISIS or the Communists.

[JimL]

Well, that is your opinion, which is no more valid or correct than the opinion of ISIS or the Communists.

Yes, and being that morals aren't objective facts, in the sense that they are dictates from above, they are objective facts in the sense of whether they serve the purpose intended. If we want to live in a world of oppression and slavery then we are free to adopt such a morality and call such acts as burning people alive and stoning people to death moral, like the Morality of the biblical YHWH. We determine what is moral and what is immoral, and sometimes we attribute those morals to the dictates of a deity, but in reality the choice is ours to make.

[Tassman]

Yes and ISIS is attempting to build a cohesive community, just as the murderous Communists of the last century. So what is your point?

This is just silly Tass. There is no growing beyond in the evolutionary process,

Thus speaks the “expert” that doesn't believe in evolution.

In any event you are demonstrably incorrect in your interpretation of it. Even though our biological make-up remains largely unchanged we, with our large brains, are capable of learning and implementing our knowledge, modifying our behavioural code, adapting to the environment around us and modifying it. This is evident from our slow but constant social evolution from the primitive Paleothic era, when we were little better than our fellow primates, up to around 5,500 years ago: when writing was invented in Sumer, thus triggering the beginning of modern history.

there is only what works. And ISIS has not reverted to anything - they are just acting as nature created them to act. Really, why do you hate nature so much?

Ah, more authoritative statements about Evolution from the person who doesn't believe in it.

As opposed to you, I would say that ISIS is acting as their tribal religion dictates, religion being historically intolerant of infidels or gentiles or whatever you want to refer to the “out group as. E.g. The Israelite conquest of Canaan, the Islamic expansion, the Crusades, the Thirty Year's War etc and now of course now we have further Islamic expansion.

Religion once offered a survival advantage because it organized cooperative behaviour and reinforced existing moral codes for the benefit of the tribal community but, in a diverse, multicultural world it is clearly detrimental to survival. However, just as humans evolved socially to be religious they can evolve out of it. It's already happening, although slowly, in the more developed countries.

Do you get your panties in a wad when one group of chimps kill another group of chimps? You are like a fish complaining that he is wet - it makes no sense.

They’re behaving as chimps have evolved to behave; our own ancestors weren't much different in the earliest days. Why do you, as a theist, reckon your deity created such murderous little animals?

The ISIS fighters have no choice in what they are doing, they are determined by the evolutionary process to do what they are doing.

You think this do you? The expert in Evolution strikes again.

I would say that they believe they’re obeying God’s Law. The problem for theists is that they can’t reach consensus about what constitutes "God's Law" - even within in the same religion. Even within the same denomination within the same religion. Let alone decide which religion is the right religion. But one thing for sure, whatever the religion, its adherents just "KNOW" that it is the right one and requires what ever it takes to defend it - as ISIS is doing.

Addressed to JimL:

So what? Why is hypocrisy objectively wrong?

It is instinctive. ALL moral codes are based upon our instincts including the religion-based ones - given that humans invented the religions anyway.

We are predisposed by Natural Selection towards instinctive altruism, direct and indirect reciprocity and the observance of the rules of the community. This is the essence of the Golden Rule ("Do unto others...") which has existed, in one form or another, in virtually every human society dating back to ancient Egypt c. 2000 BCE.

[Tassman]

You have partially answered my first question, but not answered my second.




Your answer to (1) seems to be "...the behaviour which best enables the human ‘machine’ to function as nature equipped it to function via Natural Selection. That is as cooperative social animals living among others of the species in cohesive, supportive communities."

So presumably, a community can decide for itself what it's particular moral values are - or it can take the moral values it has (as a result of Natural Selection) as being good ones. These would be values that help the community survive, and it's members pass on their genes to the next generation. Correct?

No. Evolution occurs at a glacial pace. Our biological make-up would be very little changed from when, according to the fossil evidence, modern humans evolved in East Africa around 200,000 years ago, But, unlike our fellow primates, our much larger brains enable us to learn better and to adapt and build upon our knowledge.