And when you talk about the bible I take it this is the King James version written some 400 years ago
Why would you assume that, given there are significantly older extant texts?
The bible for one - 66 books written over roughly 1,500 years by 40+ authors from all walks of life and all pointing to Jesus as the ultimate sign of God's love for man.
If you were truely a scientist I doubt that you would accept testimony, written or otherwise, from people 1500 years remote from the events that they report. That's before we even get to the number of languages that they have been translated through. It may be your idea of good evidence but it certainly isn't mine.
To make that up would be impossible
No it's not. Continuing to write about a topic so that you can maintain your power over a populous seems like a very sensible and practial thing to do if maintining the status quo is your ultimate aim. Again I would have thought that a scientist would only use the word "impossible" for things that are actually forbiden by the laws of nature.
its an evolutionary benefit to co-operate
Accepting that's a justifiable hypothesis, that still doesn't give you a 'morality' as such. For example, while it might offer a rationale for restoring the sick to full health and thereby their ability to contribute, it still wouldn't justify expending finite resources keeping alive the weak and feeble, or terminally ill. Would you then be okay with implementing a programme of euthanasia for those too ill, weak or old to work?
It is through my belief in Jesus that I also have belief in God.
See, this is the bit I just don't 'get'.
I am more than happy to accept that a bloke called Jesus did exist. That there may be a god or many god's, and if you choose to believe in him/her/it then I have respect for that and possibly even envy the ability to hold a belief that strongly.
But what I don't get is the link between [s]a bloke in a book[/s] Jesus and god. And how evidence for one existing leads to the belief in the other which in turn leads back to the belief in the first.
Essentially it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. [i]b[/i] exists because [i]a[/i] say's so and [i]a[/i] must be correct because [i]b[/i] say's [i]a[/i] is the truth.
EDIT: sorry, 'bloke in a book' is not ment to be offensive. but reading it back I can see how it could be
It's very probable that the appearance of emmaculate conception was simply a mistranslation from "young woman". Either that or Jesus actually was the son of a woman and a god. I will let you decide which is the most probable explanation.
And when you talk about the bible I take it this is the King James version written some 400 years ago
Why would you assume that, given there are significantly older extant texts?
Well first off it might be worth repeating the next part of the sentence-
"And when you talk about the bible I take it this is the King James version written some 400 years ago, and based on edits and translations of various text"
And in answer to the question "Why would I assume this? Because I've yet to meet anyone who's fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic and Hellenistic Greek. I have met people who are fluent in English though. So as assumptions go it seems a reasonable starting point.
ditch_jockey - MemberI think the point he's trying to make is that you have no objective basis for that moral code - it's a social construct. It's one of the problems with Kant's de-ontological approach to ethics that it doesn't stand robust scrutiny in a culture which favours pluralism
Can you elabortate?
(although it does suggest a clue as to why you are frequently so convinced your right).
Sorry TJ, but that is quite funny!! Your own categorical imperative!!
What a moral code is not is a set of rules handed down from a God. Indeed its the other way round - the religious took the existing moral code and took it for their own
TJ - where did the moral code that the religious inherited come from?
that still doesn't give you a 'morality' as such. For example, while it might offer a rationale for restoring the sick to full health and thereby their ability to contribute, it still wouldn't justify expending finite resources keeping alive the weak and feeble, or terminally ill. Would you then be okay with implementing a programme of euthanasia for those too ill, weak or old to work?
So you are saying only a "morality" borne out of a belief in an invisible friend is the one "true" morality? all others are simply a means to an end.
I would argue that it is only your "morality" that apparently offers the kingdon of heaven as its "reward". In reality this is the most selfish of "morality" imaginable.
Indeed a moral code is a social construct - its an evolutionary benefit to co operate.What a moral code is not is a set of rules handed down from a God. Indeed its the other way round - the religious took the existing moral code and took it for their own
So, how do you propose that a consensus of such moral codes can be arrived at within a primitive society such as those which first formed the basis of Religion as we know it today? How, without the benefit of scientific knowledge, do you think it wooduv bin possible to 'enforce' such moral codes on a [i]society[/i], without the framework of a cohesive guiding institution such as religion?
And if you took away Religion, what institution would you entrust the 'management' of moral codes of conduct to? The police? A political party? A group of persons elected by their peers to perform such a task? Who?
Or should it just be a free for all; do what you as an individual think is 'right'?
TJ - where did the moral code that the religious inherited come from?
It's a bloody good question you know. And I'd be interested in seeing an attempt at an answer actually.
Great discussion this one, tbh. And with less of the nastiness you usually get on threads of this nature...
To make that up would be impossible.
You're happy to believe that it's possible for a bloke to [i]actually[/i] be the son of god, walk on water, heal the sick, etc... and yet it's not possible to write a book?
It is through my belief in Jesus that I also have belief in God.
Isn't that a little tenuous? I can see how the reverse would be true, that you believe in God and so by extension you believe in Jesus. But believing in something as huge as "god" as a concept because of some fables in a book about a bloke who, for all we know these days, could simply have been a consomethinge precursor to David Blaine, I find that logic harder to follow.
I've yet to meet anyone who's fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic and Hellenistic Greek.
How do we know they've been translated correctly?
Not read all this but how do god botherers choose which bit of the bible they will practice? Pretty sure there is a bit about killing men who shave. Surely it all should be adhered to. I'm all for love thy fellow man but when god wants people killed count me out.
TJ - where did the moral code that the religious inherited come from?
if we're talking Christians, they haven't taken their morals from the bible; which condones rape, infanticide, and ownership of slaves, among many other unpleasant things.
there are plenty of good moral lessons in the bible, there are also lots of nasty ones.
yer average Christian listens to the nice bits, and ignores the bad bits, which is great, but how do they decide which is which?
Would you then be okay with implementing a programme of euthanasia for those too ill, weak or old to work?
No I wouldn't. And yet I am not religious.
Turns out atheists can have morals too.
Or has your God forced his morals onto me?
What about free will?
FRed - religions subvert and adopt existing moral codes.
I would also like to see some evidence of the existance of moral superiority among the religious - I don't see it. I see intolerance and bigotry all around from Religion - its not a force for good.
Child abuse in the Christian churches - systematic, covered up and longstanding. The religious justification for wars. The teachings on Condoms that have caused many deaths, the suicide bombers of the middle east, the treatment of the Palestinians, the caste system of India.
TJ - where did the moral code that the religious inherited come from?
Evolutionary pressures and enlightened self interest.
Was there no moral code before the Christian religion?
Christ was just another jewish prophet after all - and the morals of the old and new testaments are rather different.
An eye for an eye or turn the other cheek?
Can you elaborate?
Aye kind of (at the risk of massive oversimplification) - Kantian moral philosphy argues that the morality of an act is intrinsic within the act itself, rather than being defined by either the consequences of the act, or the intentions of the person who acts. From there Kant argues that there are underlying universal principles that govern morality - ultimately morality should be the same the world over, for everyone.
Kant's philosophy (of which this is only a part) changed the rules of the game in terms of the way we try to understand the world, but his theories about universal moral principles have been pretty thoroughly critiqued, in part because there's an implicit imperialism about them. For instance, Alistair McIntyre's book "Whose Justice, Which Rationality" explores some of the problems raised by Kant's theories on the way to formulating his own proposals.
I think the point he's trying to make is that you have no objective basis for that moral code - it's a social construct. It's one of the problems with Kant's de-ontological approach to ethics that it doesn't stand robust scrutiny in a culture which favours pluralism
One of the other problems I have with Kant is that he seems to pluck the notion that human beings have some intrinsic value out of thin air - in common with a lot of secular philosophy, which seems to take it as read that human beings matter in some way. As far as I can see, if scientific determinism is indeed correct, then human beings have no intrinsic value whatsoever
I think you would agree that humans at least have the intrinsic value to survive (as an individual) and to do so as simply as possible, as this would ensure survival for the longest period.
This basic value is explains a 'moral code' as such that it allows people to live side by side with the least amount of conflict. While allowing people to full-fill their wants and needs.
There's are balancing act in play between this wants/needs fulfilment and acting in a way that brings the least conflict.
As soon as this balance gets tipped in either way you see a break down in the morality of humans.
So the morals are not the intrinsic value and this is the key to understanding morals without religion.
Just like to point out at this juncture that I am following this interesting and reasonably good natured thread in the bath, in the nuddy. If anyone makes unpleasant comments, I can ridicule them by using my willy as a puppet...
No I wouldn't. And yet I am not religious.
That's commendable, but you've not bothered to indicate the objective basis for your moral choice - which was the point I was trying to make.
No one is trying to argue that secular ethics don't exist - we're trying to explore the objective, scientific basis for them.
Morality differs between the old and new testaments.
Eye for an Eye.
Turn the other cheek.
It's about survival, see my post above.So, how do you propose that a consensus of such moral codes can be arrived at within a primitive society such as those which first formed the basis of Religion as we know it today?
Why do they need to be enforced. Suggesting they do is to suggest they are not to the benefit of the majority. As if they were why would you not follow them?How, without the benefit of scientific knowledge, do you think it wooduv bin possible to 'enforce' such moral codes on a society, without the framework of a cohesive guiding institution such as religion?
To make that up would be impossible
Tell L Ron Hubbard that.
Turn the other cheek.
i believe that's aimed at crikey.
I can ridicule them by using my willy as a puppet...
Euugh.. You'll go to Hell....ensburgh.
That's commendable, but you've not bothered to indicate the objective basis for your moral choice - which was the point I was trying to make.
Okay: I'd rather someone didn't do that to me or someone I love, so I don't want to be the person doing it to someone else.
humans at least have the intrinsic value to survive
I'd not argue that humans have an impulse to survive, but that's not the same as [i]"phil.w has intrinsic value"[/i].
As an attempt to clarify my point - I undertake informal education with young people. If we leave aside the arguments about the existence, or otherwise, of God, my own motivation for doing this comes from my convictions that the young people I work with are created 'in the image of God', which, as a consequence, imbues them with a certain intrinsic value, irrespective of their ability to contribute to the wider good.
The question I was asking - with a genuine interest in the reply - was whether the folks arguing for a secular morality had their own basis for viewing humans as having an intrinsic value, or whether it was a subjective judgement.
I'd rather someone didn't do that to me or someone I love, so I don't want to be the person doing it to someone else.
I think that leads us to the 'karma' reason for actions that have compunction and acting 'morally' to avoid this reversal of situation.
As silly as karma really is, it's still a valid reason as to why we can have morals without religion.
i think people have potential value rather than intrinsic value.
if we're talking Christians, they haven't taken their morals from the bible; which condones rape, infanticide, and ownership of slaves, among many other unpleasant things.
I get the impression that people sometimes confuse descriptive passages with normative - but that does still leave some difficult passages to tackle.
As to how we choose which bits are which - there's a generally accepted principle about interpreting the Old Testament in the context of the New. Somewhere in the loft, I have a folder from my OT classes which has notes relating to some of this, although our lecturer (who was fluent in Hebrew, koine and classical Greek, Aramaic and several other long-dead languages most people wouldn't even know about) still struggled with some of the more brutal passages in the historical books of the OT.
Unfortunately, many people's understanding of how Christians engage with the Bible is filtered through the lens of American fundamentalism's obsession with inerrancy, which is fortunately much less widespread in this country.
i think people have potential value
Okay - but you still need to provide me with an objective basis for that value, potential or otherwise?
you still need to provide me with an objective basis for that value, potential or otherwise?
Can I perhaps answer that by turning it around? Ie,
my own motivation for doing this comes from my convictions that the young people I work with are created 'in the image of God', which, as a consequence, imbues them with a certain intrinsic value
... so without god, human life would have no value to you?
TJ - where did the moral code that the religious inherited come from? Evolutionary pressures and enlightened self interest.
Ok - but there must be some starting point or source?
do I? 😆
that wasn't part of the plan, i'm just coming to terms with being a nihilist.
The question I was asking - with a genuine interest in the reply - was whether the folks arguing for a secular morality had their own basis for viewing humans as having an intrinsic value, or whether it was a subjective judgement.
Coming from a largly secular humanist viewpoint I think on the whole humans are imbued with certain intrinsic values. My basis for this would be that we have evolved as a social species, and to survive successfully as a social group we need certain innate qualities hard-wired. Of course the degree of this 'hard-wiring' varies from person to person and can be overridden by personal circumstances. I have no problem with the concept of these being provided by zero one of more gods with the proviso that it would be nice for people who do propose these concepts to try and examine them fairly. So for instance deciding that these qualities have come from a specific god, because that is the god your society prefers and denying that it's possible that these could have come from another less familiar god seems a little odd, though perfectly understandable.
what cougar said. 😉
I pretended my willy was an angry Elf; purple with rage....
I'm out now.
interesting:
[url= http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12132-altruistic-chimps-act-for-the-benefit-of-others.html ]are morals hard wired?[/url]
The question I was asking - with a genuine interest in the reply - was whether the folks arguing for a secular morality had their own basis for viewing humans as having an intrinsic value, or whether it was a subjective judgement.
Personally, no - I don't believe people have any "intrinsic value", at least not in a universal sense. The world exists because it exists, not as some kind of plaything for an all-powerful being. That's not to say that volunteering or leading a life of petty crime don't have a positive or negative effect on your value to society, though. Morality, such as it is, is a natural consequence of living in society.
Ok - but there must be some starting point or source?
Why? It evolved as consciousness appeared and the tribes grew and prospered. Tribes that co operated were more successful - people that co operated were more successful.
I think that leads us to the 'karma' reason for actions that have compunction and acting 'morally' to avoid this reversal of situation.
Yep, or "reap as you sow", "live by the sword; die by the sword", "do unto others" and so forth.
Truth is that social pack animals develop a variety of techniques to avoid constant conflict and stress; it's just that human techniques are slightly more advanced as we have a greater understanding of the consequences to our actions.
I'd not argue that humans have an impulse to survive, but that's not the same as "phil.w has intrinsic value".
The question I was asking - with a genuine interest in the reply - was whether the folks arguing for a secular morality had their own basis for viewing humans as having an intrinsic value, or whether it was a subjective judgement.
Ahh, I see. I was explaining where morals without religion can come from / why they can exist.
I've not been asked before if I think humans have an intrinsic value, so I don't have a very detailed answer. On a simple level, no, I can see no reason why they are of any more 'worth' than other animals. Especially nothing to the level of the value you would place on them as being created in the image of god.
I guess we have some link through being the same species for whatever that is worth (if anything)?
The feast of the Son of Isis (Goddess of Nature) was celebrated on December 25. Raucous partying, gluttonous eating and drinking, and gift-giving were traditions of this feast....so Pagan origins. This was being celebrated LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG before" Gentle Jesus was born in our barn"
.....sounds more like Christmas Day to me!!
Question: If we are all made in the image of "god", how come we all look different?
Morality differs between the old and new testaments.Eye for an Eye.
Turn the other cheek.
Taken in context, these two ideas are not incompatible
[i]"an eye for an eye"[/i] establishes a principle of 'restitution' in the social ordering of the covenant community - if you do something that damages my ox, you have to give me an ox back, but the restitution is reflective of the original loss.
[i]"turn the other cheek" [/i]- is about encouraging a new standard of living, whereby if you do harm to me, I shouldn't go looking for revenge. It's reinforced later the the instruction to [i]"love your enemies and do good to those who hate you"[/i]. It seems to me that this is embedding the principle of living at peace with the people around you even further, and moving the emphasis from [i]'my rights' [/i]to [i]'my obligations'[/i].
Before anyone else points it out, I am acutely aware that if we prioritised living out the bits we do understand from the Bible, we might have a lot more credibility than we currently enjoy.
The debate becomes clearer, for me at least, when you regard religion as a social construct, a way of formalising those morals and ethics that most people living in small family groups would take for granted. As tribes and other larger groups began living together, the need to identify, to retain, to strengthen your own tribe requires in turn a set of rules. Add in that human urge for curiousity, a bit of wonder, remnants of other cultural or tribal myths, and hey presto...
I'm not made in his image I look horrid in a one piece smock.... not tall enough you see 😯
Question: If we are all made in the image of "god", how come we all look different?
I expect it's a bit like making Yorkshire puddings.
Just like to point out at this juncture that I am following this interesting and reasonably good natured thread in the bath, in the nuddy. If anyone makes unpleasant comments, I can ridicule them by using my willy as a puppet...
Pictures or it didn't happen. 😆
it's just that human techniques are slightly more advanced
only in such that we have to give a name to it and invent reasons as to why we act that way. 🙂
But more importantly: what tyres for religion?
Thanks DJ - I understood Kant's perspective but it was your comment about pluralism, that I didn't quite follow. I am probably being slow - but I guess this is your point at the end of para 1?
I need to read McIntryre - I hear him quoted often but don't know his material.
Joke of the day? Chutney's or TJ's categorical imperative. Hard to choose!
I was curious about this so just been on a [u]Christian[/u] website and they (one website one set of people) don't think Christmas origins are anything to do with Jesus's birthday as the bible says that Elisabeth (whoever she was) conceived in early July. Mary (I remember her from school plays) conceived some 6 months after Elisabeth, in early January. Therefore Jesus was born just over 9 months later; which brings us to an autumn date in late September/early October.
I expect it's a bit like making Yorkshire puddings.
🙂
No pics. 2 hours on bike make for less than impressive displays of willyary. Even the scientifically proven use of water as a magnifying agent didn't help.
Poor little fella, it went so far in I almost had a tail...
Question: If we are "intelligently designed", what's so intelligent about cancer?
... so without god, human life would have no value to you?
Cougar - does it have an [i]intrinsic[/i] value to you?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I become convinced by the arguments of scientific determinism to abandon my belief in God - is there any [i]objective[/i] argument for why I should continue to volunteer full-time with young people, or am I entirely dependent on [i]subjective[/i] social constructs about what consitutes 'good'?
Crikey - blue acorn?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I become convinced by the arguments of scientific determinism to abandon my belief in God - is there any objective argument for why I should continue to volunteer full-time with young people, or am I entirely dependent on subjective social constructs about what consitutes 'good'?
That's exactly what I was asking you (-:
Objective arguments would probably centre around evolutionary advantages in helping others of your species by transferring knowledge?
Question: If we are "intelligently designed", what's so intelligent about cancer?
I'd have been more impressed if you had asked "if we are intelligently designed why can I accidently bite the inside of my cheek."
Acorn?
I wish...
Blimey! I asked someone religious about Cancer once just after my Mum's best friend had died I got told the world started off God made it good and people used to live for 3 score years and ten but then modern humans ruined it with crap food alcohol smoking etc.... *sighs*
The other one I hate is 'oh he takes all the good one's first to be with him earlier'.... really? Purleeeeeeeeeeeease.......!!!!
is there any objective argument for why I should continue to volunteer full-time with young people, or am I entirely dependent on subjective social constructs about what consitutes 'good'?
I'd say the latter.
Without the promise of reward in heaven for all your good work, you are left with concept that you are just doing "good" because you want to be a good person and you find that being good, spreading happiness and love is rewarding experience in itself.
(Reading that back the first line sounds like a dig at your motivation. It isn't. I just mean "in the absence of that objective motivation".)
10 Pages and the religious as usual go all around the houses, arguing semantics, faith and morality.
Either there is an all powerful creator and an eternal soul or there isn't. If you believe there is I think it's fair for anyone to ask you why you believe that and expect a better answer than "because I do". Otherwise they may think you're a bit of a looney.
Poor little fella, it went so far in I almost had a tail...
😆 Make me [i]laugh[/i]....
Lion cold?
So if we are intelligently designed who was on the committee that designed male genitalia?
I washed it as fast as I could too... Nothing, like a dormouse, fast asleep, although not as cute.
...and if you're not meant to put things up your nose, why is it so easy.?
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that I become convinced by the arguments of scientific determinism to abandon my belief in God - is there any objective argument for why I should continue to volunteer full-time with young people, or am I entirely dependent on subjective social constructs about what consitutes 'good'?
from the other point of view you're entirely dependent on subjective religious constructs about what constitutes good to get you to do it at the moment.
essentially your motivations, in-fact all motivations, religious or otherwise, come down to [i]you[/i] and ultimately what [i]you[/i] get out of it. there is no such thing as a truly altruistic act.
It evolved as consciousness appeared and the tribes grew and prospered. Tribes that co operated were more successful
Fair enough - however, that then makes most of the arguments about religion espoused here pretty irrelevant. If we're simply describing social evolution, then the prevalence of religion amongst every successful tribe suggests that, far from being an inhibition, it was pretty much essential to human evolution does it not?
Interestingly, the social geography department at Edinburgh university have been doing some studies (conducted by secular scientists) that have come to the conclusion that communities which have a high number of religious groups within them tend to thrive when measured by the government's criteria for social capital.
Altruism is non-denominational, hopefully.
Question: If we are "intelligently designed", what's so intelligent about cancer?
Also, why would an allegedly benevolent God bestow cancer upon His creations?
So if we are intelligently designed who was on the committee that designed male genitalia?
Moreover, if we were intelligently designed, how can we also be in god's image? Aren't they mutually exclusive states?
(And if man was created in god's image, where did the design for ladygardens come from?)
Good point ditch jockey - I would argue that religion comes out of the social evolution - ie it is a way of finding meaning in what already exists not that religion leads to morals but morals lead to religion to explain why we have morals.
its very hard for people to accept that things "just are" -we always want a reason
Before anyone else points it out, I am acutely aware that if we prioritised living out the bits we do understand from the Bible, we might have a lot more credibility than we currently enjoy.
Is that what it's all about, credibility? The christian church especially the church of england is so liberal it's untrue. And don't get me started on the guilt trip the catholic church uses to control its followers.
I'm sorry, but if the bible is the word of god, is it all not the word of god? You can't go chopping and changing to make yourselves popular with the masses. Politicians have done that for years and look where that has got us.
Religeon was invented by man, written about by man and sustained by man to control the masses and create power for the few.
If you want a true modern equivalent, look into scientology. Invented by a third rate science fiction author who was on record (if his followers haven't removed it) as saying the one true way of making yourself rich was to invent a religeon.
from the other point of view you're entirely dependent on subjective religious constructs about what constitutes good to get you to do it at the moment.
True to an extent, but then that's not factoring in the experiential element that has shaped my personal convictions - my hypothesis about the existence of the God described in the Bible makes sense of what i see in the world around me, and nurtures the convictions about how I should act in the world.
However, the whole thing does stand or fall on my conviction about the existence of God, which I can't prove beyond doubt to either you - or myself for that matter!
I suspect that there is some, ill defined, point at which societies develop to the point where the influence and power previously held by religion is taken over by the Nation State. I think religion has worked in the past to help to perform a role as part of a 'society', but that as the world has moved on, it's role is now lessening.
Essentially, religion only works until commerce takes over...
Altruism is non-denominational, hopefully
A altruistic act is a paradox, it simply cannot exist.
Religeon was invented by man, written about by man and sustained by man to control the masses and create power for the few.
...and, as we've learned today, you have no objective basis for deciding whether that is a '[i]good'[/i] or [i]'bad'[/i] thing - you can simply observe phenomena and reflect on whether they've helped or hindered human development. On that basis, given that all successful societies have had a religion, it looks as if we'd have had to invent God anyway if he didn't exist, so what's the worry?
However, the whole thing does stand or fall on my conviction about the existence of God,
and the kids are praying you don't lose your faith 🙂
though for that purpose it needed to be invented for belief in a religion could easily be substituted for an equal belief in something else. it's about the level of belief and what it is possible to achieve from this, not what the belief is in.it looks as if we'd have had to invent God anyway if he didn't exist, so what's the worry?
its very hard for people to accept that things "just are" -we always want a reason
bloody annoying isn't it - you'd almost think we were created that way!