To what extent can ethics be anchored in reason?

[seer]

Then your argument is that there is no reason that a thing is either good or bad other than that it is an objective law of god, correct? In other words murder and theft are not inherently evil, they are only evil because they go against gods law. Is gods moral nature based on reason do you think, or is it just arbitrary and purposeless? You do realize that your god orders both , that thou shalt not murder and that thou shalt murder. Are you going to argue that there are reasons for these moral changes in him.

Well of course murder and theft are wrong, those violate the purpose for how God created us. And God's moral nature is what informs His reason or reasons, just as yours does. Except your moral nature is arbitrary by nature in a godless universe where God's moral nature is immutable. And again you are wrong, God never orders murder - not all killing is murder, as we discussed in the past.

Did not the biblical god define "good" based on his goal when he ordered the murder of men, women, and children, and the pillaging of their land and property, just like the Hutus? Your argument is the same as mine seer, i.e. that morality is goal based, determined by reason, not objective brute facts of gods immutable character.

God did destroy two tribes that were trying to destroy the Hebrews. A people which would produce Christ, the savior of mankind. That was the goal, springing from an immutable, omniscient moral character.

So you want god to make you good? You don't want to be free to choose anymore? And seer, just a question, do you really think of god as a male, with male genitalia and a long white beard or do you think god is gender neutral and are just using "him" or "He" as a gender neutral term.

Jim, stop with the nonsense, you know we don't think that God has a penis. But He does, largely (but not always) relate to us as a Father figure. And no, I do not want to choose sin any more, that does not mean that I won't be free to choose in other areas that don't include sin.

[Tassman]

Well of course murder and theft are wrong, those violate the purpose for how God created us. And God's moral nature is what informs His reason or reasons, just as yours does. Except your moral nature is arbitrary by nature in a godless universe where God's moral nature is immutable. And again you are wrong, God never orders murder - not all killing is murder, as we discussed in the past.

Just what is this immutable moral goal of God seer and where during the history of the Judeo/Christian religion have we seen this goal being implemented?

God did destroy two tribes that were trying to destroy the Hebrews. A people which would produce Christ, the savior of mankind. That was the goal, springing from an immutable, omniscient moral character.

I see. So your argument is that genocide is OK if there’s a good reason on for it. Many of us would say there’s never a good reason for mass murder.

Jim, stop with the nonsense, you know we don't think that God has a penis. But He does, largely (but not always) relate to us as a Father figure. And no, I do not want to choose sin any more, that does not mean that I won't be free to choose in other areas that don't include sin.

Yes exactly. God is the idealised version of our father. That’s where he originated...god made in the image of man, but bigger and better.

[JimL]

Well of course murder and theft are wrong, those violate the purpose for how God created us. And God's moral nature is what informs His reason or reasons, just as yours does. Except your moral nature is arbitrary by nature in a godless universe where God's moral nature is immutable. And again you are wrong, God never orders murder - not all killing is murder, as we discussed in the past.

So murder and theft aren't inherently wrong, they are only wrong because god says so? I actually agree, there is nothing inherently immoral, accept it isn't immoral because god says so, it's immoral because we recognize that murder and theft being wrong is in our best interests as a social species. Morals in human beings evolved and gods purpose has nothing to do with why morality evolved, because the purpose of morality is relative to our existence, not to gods purpose.

God did destroy two tribes that were trying to destroy the Hebrews. A people which would produce Christ, the savior of mankind. That was the goal, springing from an immutable, omniscient moral character.

Thats simply a rationalizing of your beliefs seer. The biblical story attributes the brutal murder of men, women and children, and pillaging of their neighbors to their god, but it was just tribal warfare. The other tribes did the same.

Jim, stop with the nonsense, you know we don't think that God has a penis. But He does, largely (but not always) relate to us as a Father figure. And no, I do not want to choose sin any more, that does not mean that I won't be free to choose in other areas that don't include sin.

You only relate to god as a father figure seer, because that is what you've been taught to think. If it were a matriarchal society and god turned out to be the Mother, the Daughter, and the holy ghost, then you'd relate to god as a Mother figure.
And again, if it is better that you not be able to choose, then it would be better that god created you that way in the first place. To not choose god would itself be a sin, and that would also need a god to remove.

[seer]

So murder and theft aren't inherently wrong, they are only wrong because god says so? I actually agree, there is nothing inherently immoral, accept it isn't immoral because god says so, it's immoral because we recognize that murder and theft being wrong is in our best interests as a social species. Morals in human beings evolved and gods purpose has nothing to do with why morality evolved, because the purpose of morality is relative to our existence, not to gods purpose.

Well Jim, that is your opinion. Since I believe that man is created in the image of God, and has the "law of God written on his heart" I don't believe that our moral sense can be explained only by the evolutionary processes.

Thats simply a rationalizing of your beliefs seer. The biblical story attributes the brutal murder of men, women and children, and pillaging of their neighbors to their god, but it was just tribal warfare. The other tribes did the same.

No it isn't rationalizing Jim, it is what we believe that Scripture teaches.

You only relate to god as a father figure seer, because that is what you've been taught to think. If it were a matriarchal society and god turned out to be the Mother, the Daughter, and the holy ghost, then you'd relate to god as a Mother figure.

Well since we actually do believe in God, He would have presented Himself as a Father figure no matter which culture He related to.

And again, if it is better that you not be able to choose, then it would be better that god created you that way in the first place. To not choose god would itself be a sin, and that would also need a god to remove.

How do you know what would have been better Jim? Are you omniscient? I trust that God is good, and that He knows what He is doing.

[shunyadragon]

Well Jim, that is your opinion. Since I believe that man is created in the image of God, and has the "law of God written on his heart" I don't believe that our moral sense can be explained only by the evolutionary processes.

Apologize for clicking Amen. It was unintentional. Since it is what you believe, JimL, Tassman and you are arguing 'opinions' over and over and over again. Hamsters on the wheel of circular arguments.

[JimL]

Well Jim, that is your opinion. Since I believe that man is created in the image of God, and has the "law of God written on his heart" I don't believe that our moral sense can be explained only by the evolutionary processes.

That's a catch phrase seer, as infants make perfectly clear, nothing is written on our hearts. Morality is instilled by our parents and culture.

No it isn't rationalizing Jim, it is what we believe that Scripture teaches.

Well thats true, scripture does teach you that, but thats what all ancient tribes did, they attributed their successes in war to their tribal god. Constantine applied that idea in his use of christianity to expand his empire.

Well since we actually do believe in God, He would have presented Himself as a Father figure no matter which culture He related to.

I don't think that makes sense seer. What that assertion comes down to is "since we actually do believe that god is a male, he would have presented himself as a male. The question is why do you think he was perceived to be a male in the first place?

How do you know what would have been better Jim? Are you omniscient? I trust that God is good, and that He knows what He is doing.

So god will absolve us of all sin, except for the sin of not believing in his existence? Now, people don't "not believe in god" because they don't want to believe in god, not believing is not a temptation that they are giving into, they "don't believe in god" because they can't know and so they wiegh the evidence and come to that conclusion. So why would a just god forgive all knowingly sinful actions of men, and condemn those who have come to an honest non-belief conclusion? And remember most of the people who live, and who have ever lived, do not, and have not, believed in your god.

[Tassman]

Well Jim, that is your opinion. Since I believe that man is created in the image of God, and has the "law of God written on his heart" I don't believe that our moral sense can be explained only by the evolutionary processes.

We know we have a “moral sense” and we understand the evolutionary process. We DON’T know about the existence of gods or laws of god.

No it isn't rationalizing Jim, it is what we believe that Scripture teaches.

We don’t believe that.

Well since we actually do believe in God, He would have presented Himself as a Father figure no matter which culture He related to.

Gods have always been made in man’s image.

How do you know what would have been better Jim? Are you omniscient? I trust that God is good, and that He knows what He is doing.

He does not exist.

[Leonhard]

Morals in human beings evolved and gods purpose has nothing to do with why morality evolved, because the purpose of morality is relative to our existence, not to gods purpose.

As has been pointed out to you before, you can advance this as a speculation, but there's no scientific theory of human morality.

[JimL]

As has been pointed out to you before, you can advance this as a speculation, but there's no scientific theory of human morality.

I'm not so sure you are correct in that. I watched a documentary decades ago in which warring tribes learned mutual trust through a ritual wherein each tribe allowed their armed enemies to enter their camp while they themselves lie in their beds unarmed. They came to understand that it was better that they trust each other, for both of them to live in peace and cooperation rather than constantly attacking and murdering each other, and they reinforced that trust by ritualizing it in that manner. People learn through experience, they learn from past experience, and they put what they've learned to work in a way that makes their collective lives together better. So, I don't know if you'd call that a scientific theory, I don't know that you'd call a study of human behavior, and how through experience it changes over time, changes which serve to better the lives of all involved, I don't know if you'd call that a scientific theory, but it would seem to be part of the evolutionary process to me, which is itself a scientific theory.

[Tassman]

As has been pointed out to you before, you can advance this as a speculation, but there's no scientific theory of human morality.

There is scientific evidence of evolved natural behaviour that underpins human morality though. Certain evolved characteristic such as altruism, empathy, and gratitude all underpin moral behaviour. The evidence is that these qualities run deep in our brain biology and did not come about because of moral reasoning or religion. In fact, probably the opposite is true.

[carpedm9587]

As has been pointed out to you before, you can advance this as a speculation, but there's no scientific theory of human morality.

I think you may want to google "scientific study on morality." I think you will be somewhat amazed by what you turn up. Morality has been, and continues to be, extensively researched and theories are in abundance.

[showmeproof]

It doesn't assume that at all. What it does assume is that if atheism is true then there are times when it actually is in one's best interest to live selfishly. So I ask again, why ought one value what's best for society if it's in their own best interest to live selfishly?

Because the time will likely come when you need a favor or forgiveness. More importantly, in the infancy of our species and the development of many social rules, one would have been in a great deal more reciprocal need.

[Tassman]

Because the time will likely come when you need a favor or forgiveness. More importantly, in the infancy of our species and the development of many social rules, one would have been in a great deal more reciprocal need.

Yes exactly! For any social species, the benefits of being part of an altruistic group outweigh the benefits of individualism. Hence we attempt to restrain individual selfishness in favour of building more cooperative groups.

[carpedm9587]

Because the time will likely come when you need a favor or forgiveness. More importantly, in the infancy of our species and the development of many social rules, one would have been in a great deal more reciprocal need.

I would say because it does not generalize without contradiction. Yes - I may benefit short-term from choosing and acting selfishly. But I live in society and if my "live selfishly" approach were to be generalized to the entire society, my long term ability to continue to exist and be happy are very likely to be threatened. My well being is, generally, better assured if I promote and live a model of self-care AND attention to the needs of my neighbors.

Evolution is not JUST competitive (e.g., survivial of the fittest) at the individual level. It is also has a cooperative dimension, because larger organisms tend to be stronger and better protected. So there is a balance of competition and cooperation in nature. There is likewise a cooperative element to our moral norms.

[showmeproof]

I would say because it does not generalize without contradiction. Yes - I may benefit short-term from choosing and acting selfishly. But I live in society and if my "live selfishly" approach were to be generalized to the entire society, my long term ability to continue to exist and be happy are very likely to be threatened. My well being is, generally, better assured if I promote and live a model of self-care AND attention to the needs of my neighbors.

Evolution is not JUST competitive (e.g., survivial of the fittest) at the individual level. It is also has a cooperative dimension, because larger organisms tend to be stronger and better protected. So there is a balance of competition and cooperation in nature. There is likewise a cooperative element to our moral norms.

Having children, i've often marveled at how we survived the savanahs. Incessant and untimely screams would have kept me from sleeping in fear of lurking predators.