morality == religion? Sez who?

[Berzerker]

Ben -

Ah, but this begs the question. Suppose that people, because they are flawed cannot put religion into proper practice? Then we would expect precisely this when people try, that they still get things wrong and mess things up. This is what is known as the human nature of the church, in that it is composed of human beings.

Then religion doesn't necessarily = morality much less preclude other paths to morality because it depends on people to not only practice it but create it. Religion must be compared to a different standard - one based on logic. But let's assume the moral teachings of your God are found using logic and not religion, how would that impact the argument that religion is required to be moral? Frankly, what Jesus taught - the Golden Rule, etc. - doesn't require any God to discern, just logic.

However, this says nothing about the divine nature of the church, which does not change.

But that begs the question, how can a church be divine when flawed humans make up the church?

There are some really good debates as to what precisely constitutes the divine nature of the church, but that will be for later.

But that debate is required before we can determine if religion is a requirement for morality. And even if we find a religion that is moral, that doesn't mean it precludes other paths to morality.

Through those to whom God has spoken, and our own conscience.

How do we know who God speaks to? And conscience isn't proof of God... it's proof of conscience... And do we even know how a conscience is created? Is it nurture or nature?

Very true. And I would argue that Christianity offers both an inspired text and the testimony of God.

Proof? No proof, that's why faith is needed...

True. Which returns us to the resurrection. If Christ died and rose from the dead, then he must be God, and we ought to believe what he said. If he did not, then he is not god, but rather an agent of the devil sent to decieve people.

I can think of a couple more options, but assuming Jesus is God, we're still left with the task of comparing what Jesus taught to our logical standard to see if God is moral. And you'll have to explain why Jesus changed aspects of the OT if he authored both texts. Furthermore, why is God, or the correct religion, needed if our standard based on logic is moral?
If two people, one religious and the other not, reach the same conclusions about morality, why does the one preclude the other from being moral?

There is no middle ground, of a great moral teacher, for Christ did not claim to be one, but rather, claimed to be God himself.

He never claimed to be God and he repeatedly referred to God as his and OUR father who is in heaven. Jesus was not the first nor the last person to believe he and we are children of God...

Leaving religions aside for the moment, what is at least one standard of morality? If anything can be called moral, it requires us all to agree (excluding of course children and the mentally deficient)... So what can we all agree upon? We don't want to be murdered, we don't want to be enslaved, we don't want others imposing unhappiness upon us. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... That is a logical standard for morality...

From this standard we can continue using logic to arrive at other moral judgements. Unfortunately, too many people don't use logic, they don't try to be consistent, and too many Christians ignore what Jesus taught... Too many Christians believe Jesus wants them to punish "sinners", including people who've committed no transgression against others (you know, the people Christians are supposed to forgive) - people whose "sin" doesn't harm others... That makes a mockery of the Golden Rule and "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"... So how about the "Church"? Can you identify a church that embraces what Jesus taught?

[Berzerker]

There is such a thing called Natural Evil. For example, a volcanic eruption can kill hundreds and cause pain and suffering to tens of thousands.

I wouldn't call that evil, life as we know it would not exist without plate tectonics. Certainly volcanoes destroy, but they create too...

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
That's not evil, in the sense that we're discussing morality. Evil requires a malevolent intent, and volcanoes can't be malevolent.

It depends on how you define "evil."

I reckon my response to Elok is more in terms of theology than ethics. Afterall, YHWH is supposely able to stop events such as volcano eruptions and earthquakes. If they exist, there's a problem.

[Ben Kenobi]

Jewish myth has others, not god, who died and rose from the dead. Why should Christ be special, in that light?

If it's a myth, then why do you submit it as evidence? If it is not to be trusted, then I should simply ignore it.

[Aeson]

One myth deserves to be countered with another.

[Agathon]

The evolutionary explanation of moral beliefs makes no reference to unseen or supernatural entities and should be preferred for that reason.

[Elok]

Too lazy to quote several responses...ngh.

Okay, what's "ought-to" and "ought-not-to"? And in a morality based on social cohesion, what's wrong with a sociopath who cheats and lies but always covers it up? The people he uses never wise up, so the "good" of morality is uncompromised. Why should he be kind in the conventional sense to no advantage of his own, if he's clever enough to keep dodging the consequences? You see, our idea of "good" is an independent quality, as loin said. And we might call outselves atheists, but in positing an absolute morality we really have a very primitive religion.

Gotta go. TBC.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

There is such a thing called Natural Evil. For example, a volcanic eruption can kill hundreds and cause pain and suffering to tens of thousands.

As the Greek philosopher asked:

Q. "Is death always bad? (or evil, if you prefer)"

A. "Not for undertakers."

A volcanic eruption might be good news for undertakers, plants, civil engineers, relief workers, et cetera. And vulcanologists, of course.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
It depends on how you define "evil."

In this debate it's about morality, and if you're going to assign "evil" to an inanimate object, that's losing sight of the point.

I reckon my response to Elok is more in terms of theology than ethics. Afterall, YHWH is supposely able to stop events such as volcano eruptions and earthquakes. If they exist, there's a problem.

If God is controlling the volcanoes, then that defeats your point of calling it a "Natural Evil." If you presuppose God, then it ceases to be natural and becomes just "evil."

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
If it's a myth, then why do you submit it as evidence? If it is not to be trusted, then I should simply ignore it.

The word "myth" does not connote falseness, you know.

However, these "myths" stand on the same factual ground as the Jesus myth. You just like to make special pleading for the Jesus one and ignore the others, which is your problem, not mine.

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Elok
And in a morality based on social cohesion...

It's not that morality is based on social cohesion, it's that moral terms originated from the need for social cohesion. Terms like "benevolent" and "malevolent" were necessary for group interaction -- f'rinstance, if somebody caused you injury, then you would need to be able to differentiate between an injury that was done by accident (in which case you'd do well to be wary about the group member's klutziness) and an injury taht was done with malevolent intentions (in which case you'd do well to expel the member from your group). Then, once the terms were in place, people grounded them on all sorts of different things (e.g., "good for goodness' sake," or "good so that God will reward me," or "good so that I'm not thrown in jail," or whatever).

And we might call outselves atheists, but in positing an absolute morality we really have a very primitive religion.

Which atheist(s) posited an absolute morality?

[:) Smiley]

Smiley's Corollary: Morality oppresses, and absolute morality oppresses absolutely.

[Al B. Sure!]

wow this has gone in a different direction than my quoted post was meant to take this. I followed that quote up with...

if you reject divine revealation, all you are left with are man-made moralities which are necessarily subjective.

my point was that an athiest or an agnostic has no right to call anything evil as his morality is inherently a subjective one. Even moralities which claim to be absolute (Kantian, utilitarianism, etc.) still hinge their concept of good and bad on assumptions such as the universality of a maxim or the importance of human happiness. Furthermore, the simple fact that they are made by imperfect humans is enough to constitute them as subjective, imperfect moralities.

I already assumed that religious morality was a simplistic human construct...

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
my point was that an athiest or an agnostic has no right to call anything evil as his morality is inherently a subjective one.

The term "fast" as it relates to running speed is inherently a subjective one, because what you consider to be fast might not exactly correspond to what I consider to be fast, and there is no such thing as an "absolutely fast" runner. So, I guess this means that nobody has the right to use the term "fast." Ditto with the terms "long," "tall," "fat," "smart," "rich," "old," etc. (I suppose that those who worship entities who supposedly embody the absolute concepts of "fast," "long," "tall," etc. are still permitted to use these terms.)

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Albert Speer
my point was that an athiest or an agnostic has no right to call anything evil as his morality is inherently a subjective one.

And why can't we call something evil under a subjective morality? It's not as if each individual determines moral right and wrong themselves. We have a society in which we exist, and at least within the confines of that society, there is right and wrong. So an athiest is perfectly justified in calling someone who knowingly commits wrong as being evil. Nowhere does it say that evil has to be absolute.