God based morals?

[sarabellum]

I've seen it claimed that christians have a better "moral foothold" because it is based on something, in this case Gods law or will....

Perhaps this is true.

The bible does outline many points on the moral compass....
Murder...
Theft...
False witness...
You no the drill...

Perhaps the atheist can only claim to have a "subjective view" when it comes to morality....

I would contend this is actually the case with christians as well...
Well partially...

The "moral slamdunks" I am willing to concede....

Regardless if the bible outlines some aspects of morality, is it safe to assume that some positions on the moral compass are more obscure than others...

Which is to say that life is pretty complicated. It is not always apparent what the moral solution would be for a given situation....

For example...

On the subject of artificial insemination...

Perhaps it's interfering with Gods will?

I've heard both sides of the debate from christians.
Some would say its Gods will that you not be able to have a child. The believer may see the octo-mom as some type of perversion...
While some believers may be okay with science and not see a moral decision at all...

When a moral situation arises where a believer is unsure how to precede then there God based morality becomes subjective and is essentially a guess...

The reason I would say that is that no one can offer any absolute evidence that God would consider artificial insemination a moral decision...
Perhaps it is...
Both sides could give convincing evidence for their case...
But in the end it is not apparent what God would want us to do...
So you have to guess...

Is it fair to assume that for christians many situations in there life may arise when the moral action is not readily apparent?

How do you decide what to do?
Is what they choose to do just a guess?

How much of christian morality is subjective?
Does this weaken their argument against the atheist view of morality?

[Ernestalice]

Christians morality is based on 10 Commandments and Jesus teachings. God's will can only be known after the result appeared, not before. Whatever happens, it's the best outcome, at least I think so. Don't you think it's easier to think it so?

If the parents happened to meet science called artificial insemination, it's God's will. I think science itself is God's will. Deciding is always guessing, because we don't know what will happen next. What we can do is just trying our best for the best outcome we thought.

How do you, as a catholic, reconcile the fact that the catholic 10 commandments are different then all other non-catholic denominations?

How do you resolve the train dilemma above/ Would you violate you commandments to save a life?

God's will can only be known after the result appeared, not before.

Then how can you possible know it's "god's will"?

Don't you think it's easier to think it so?

That's just it, isn't it, its easier, easier doesn't make it right.

I will answer your questions based on my opinion only, okay :
1. As a catholic, and as a person, I don't see the difference between our 10 commandments and others is a problem. I do what I believe is right to do. And other people have the right to do the same.

2. 1 of the 10 commandments says not to kill. How can I save a life if I violate it myself? I would appreciate it if you could ask me a more detailed problem.

3. I know because I believe in it. You don't know because you refuse to believe in it. It's just as simple as that.

4. So, the problem is this. You couldn't have a child. You also tried to do artificial insemination, but for some unknown reasons it's failed. You tried and tried again, but no hope. The last thing you did, you adopted a child. If it were me, I would gladly accept the child, as I believe that God's will made me to meet and adopt the wonderful child, and then make a better future. So, is it wrong to think it so? Or should I regret the adoption?

Maybe you like another problem like wars. Did God's will work in any war? I believe so. Without it, maybe your father and your mother wouldn't meet each other and you wouldn't be born.

Let's talking with a little real side, because I always think from my religious side and my reality side. Like I said before, it's easier to think it's all God's will. And God's will equals the best outcome, because God is perfect. So, it's meaningless to try to change the past. If you think it's not right, are you trying to make a time-machine and travel back time? I'm interested in new science, but I don't regret any of my past, sorry. I'm glad for being the way I am now.

[Alueshen]

I will answer your questions based on my opinion only, okay :
1. As a catholic, and as a person, I don't see the difference between our 10 commandments and others is a problem. I do what I believe is right to do. And other people have the right to do the same.

Your response is to state that you don't see the difference, but clearly there is a difference, and I don't believe that you don't see it. What I think, based on your response, is your unwilling to address the disparity, thus your position is unassailable and based totally on your own feelings, not facts

Very well. Moving on.

2. 1 of the 10 commandments says not to kill. How can I save a life if I violate it myself? I would appreciate it if you could ask me a more detailed problem.

All I've done is present you with a simple moral dilemma. I could sum it up by saying if there existed a situation where 5 people were going to be killed (though no act of yours), but there existed a way for you to change the fate of the 5 about to die by pressing a button on a table in front of you, but that your action to save the 5 condemned single person (another person) to death, would you take action by pressing the button?

Think hard about your answer, think about the number of ways you can manipulate this scenario.

If the button diverted a nuclear missile from a populated city (say Sidney AU) of millions to the scarcely populated dessert of the outback....

Or

What if the five about to die were old men all with cancer and the one you could sacrifice to save the five was the Pope, or a person on the cusp of curing cancer. What then?

The point is, your beliefs don't offer you an moral basis for making choices. They offer you one single immoral choice, thou shall not kill, but by not killing your responsible for the deaths of others, in the bomb example, for the death of millions.

My problem is your immoral beliefs inform your actions and those actions have consequences.

3. I know because I believe in it. You don't know because you refuse to believe in it. It's just as simple as that.

And to think there are people that wonder why religion to the cause of so much conflict. If you could just step outside your own opinion and see how biased that statement is.

What would you say to someone of a different faith who says to you exactly what you just said to me?

4. So, the problem is this. You couldn't have a child. You also tried to do artificial insemination, but for some unknown reasons it's failed. You tried and tried again, but no hope. The last thing you did, you adopted a child. If it were me, I would gladly accept the child, as I believe that God's will made me to meet and adopt the wonderful child, and then make a better future. So, is it wrong to think it so? Or should I regret the adoption?

Not sure what your getting at here.

Maybe you like another problem like wars. Did God's will work in any war? I believe so. Without it, maybe your father and your mother wouldn't meet each other and you wouldn't be born.

Your "belief" is no different then stating "my opinion". No idea what the point of the example regarding my mom and dad....Can you explain?

Let's talking with a little real side, because I always think from my religious side and my reality side.

I'll start out by saying that god is not part of reality, so if your thinking from both you should be seeing some conflict.

Like I said before, it's easier to think it's all God's will.

And like I said, because you "think" it or because you think it's "easier" has no bearing whatsoever on reality.

And God's will equals the best outcome, because God is perfect.

Is he perfect, or is this just your belief?

So, it's meaningless to try to change the past. If you think it's not right, are you trying to make a time-machine and travel back time? I'm interested in new science, but I don't regret any of my past, sorry. I'm glad for being the way I am now.

Again, no idea what this is addressing.

[Kismet]

I've seen it claimed that christians have a better "moral foothold" because it is based on something, in this case Gods law or will....

Perhaps this is true.

And perhaps it is not. But I think you equivocate a little on "moral foothold" (unintentionally of course) and that an even better and more interesting discussion exists with regard to: what makes morals "stick" in this foothold, that is, truly OBLIGES people, and doesn't just compel or inspire them?

I personally see law and will as synonymous terms in ethical matters. We all obey laws because, after all, someone laid them down (and this includes ourselves). It is because someone laid them down that anyone at all is ever interested in obeying them. This is a subtle point that all too often just goes behind the radar in discussions of "objective" and "subjective" morality. It is in truth all subjective, only objective in the sense that reasons, laws, commandments which are legislated by individual wills are then publicized in an open way. So, "I want you to do This" - this "This" is not private, it is public, hence "objective" but it is a subjective outpouring.

What my question is: when are we apt to follow the injunctions made by anyone, be it the state or our family or God? Ultimately I think it boils down to a question of authority. God, if only putatively being the highest authority, would in this case have the final say, or at least SHOULD, regardless of what we ourselves think.

[connermt]

God based morals? It depends on which god you're talking about;
The OT god - then that means you'd have no problem creating something, setting it up to fail, condemning it, making it's life (and it's chidlren's lives) miserable, forcing them to kiss your bum or die forever, then periodically eliminating certain cities or even your entire creation (save for a select few), not to mention killing children, having your creation kill some of your other creation to make you happy and using the lives of some of your creation to prove a point to your alter ego.
The NT god - it's all about organized religion, love, peace and happiness (peace man!), turing the other cheek, loving your neighbor, giving all to the poor, killing yourself/your son/yourself/your son and dying then coming back to life. Though, I must admit, you'd have to miss the first decade or so of your life, so you can't really tell what happened there.

Personally, if I had to choose, I would pick the OT god simply because the human race needs thinned out some (terrible drivers).

But for me, I'm happy with my own moral code. I don't need a magic man in the sky to help with that these days.

[Logomachist]

I've seen it claimed that christians have a better "moral foothold" because it is based on something, in this case Gods law or will....

I think all philosophically-minded people base their morals on *something*. It's something they struggle with.

The non-philosophically-minded tend to do what they were taught or what feels easiest whether or not it is grounded in their religion.

Is it fair to assume that for christians many situations in there life may arise when the moral action is not readily apparent?

I believe that when you have a core set of values most day-to-day moral questions are easily determined. Things get trickier when you introduce new situations which haven't been encountered before and when core values come into conflict.

How do you decide what to do?
Is what they choose to do just a guess?

It's a best guess guided by serious reflection and possibly prayer.

How much of christian morality is subjective?
Does this weaken their argument against the atheist view of morality?

I wouldn't argue against atheist morality in general; many atheists hold morals similar or identical to Christians. I think the smarter move is to argue against specific evils. Besides, I wouldn't expect most atheists to be swayed by Christian appeals to scripture or doctrine unless they can be shown to be tied into the preexisting values of the atheist.

[Jungner]

[quote="Strider324"]
Since 'god-based' morals are really just human-derived morals, my only consideration is whether I find the morals in sync with mine or not. Certainly there can be consensus, and that quality should be promoted to facilitate a more cogent moral society.


If this is the case then how can we explain the practices which have been held in other nations? Hitler is a prime example of how morals can run askew without a guiding hand. Did the whole of the nation agree with the concentration camps? Enough Germans during that period must have thought it okay if it was allowed to happen.

India once had a practice called "Widow Burning" which was morally acceptable - see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sati_(practice)

Their society believed it was alright to burn widows. Using the logic presented in your argument, this would make widow burning a moral practice would it not?

People often do not realize that the morals we consider to be "natural" are actually instilled in us from a young age. I do not believe that human beings are inherently good. Goodness is a battle that we must each take part in on a daily basis.

God is MY shepherd, but I do envy the Atheist sheep who can find his own path. Especially in the less basic matters (coveting, jealousy, tolerance).

[PREEST]

Morals and ethics based on religious principles can be considered null and void and this is why.

Firstly, Christians claim that god is the basis for all morality. Now, there are several reasons why this is problematic.
The Judeo-Christian god has his moral and ethical standards written in a book, that, firstly, was conceived more than 2000 years ago in the bronze age, illiterate middle east, and secondly, in a time where it was acceptable to do such things as stone to death adulterers. It cannot be considered moral to base modern ethics and morals on 2000 year old literature. Otherwise, it would still be kosher to have people be-headed for theft, and so on.

Second, this basis for all morality does not extend past a few issues of morality. If it is the basis for all morality then it should be a comprehensive guide to morals and ethics in ALL situations and not just a few. For example, in the ten commandments it says something like; 'honour your mother and father'. Now, this is a perfectly legitimate moral standard. However, there is no mention for how the children are to be treated by their parents. Do the children still honour their parents if their parents are abusive? There is no moral instruction for what a child should do in such a case. Just a simple instruction that we must honour our mother and father. Well, it rather depends on how mother and father treat me. These moral standards may well be what it's followers are to subscribe to but where does it leave the believer when issues of morality arise which have not be addressed in the holy book or have even bore a mention. A non theistic point of view would be to look at each situation and act accordingly in a human and compassionate way that is derived only from the innate understanding of ethics and morals from simply being human. To assert that we MUST base our morality on god is to say that we would not know what morality is and would not know how to be moral unless god tells us. Furthermore, a believer does not know what to do in regard to morality unless he comprehensively understands gods moral standards in a 2000 year old book.

Finally, how does a person of faith account for people of non-belief who, obviously, do have a moral grounding? Where do their morals come from? If not from god, then where? How does a believer explain why morality and ethics are considered deeply important to humanity by non-believers? If morality ONLY comes from god, then what makes an atheist have a moral grounding? And, are his moral standards wrong because they are not god based morals? This is not to be misconstrued with the idea that, 'if not from god then anything goes'. No, innate human morality tells us what is right and what is wrong.

Religious based morals are not a thing. It is innate within each of us as to right and wrong. I don't need god to tell me that things like theft, rape and murder are not kosher. If we didn't know that, then we would not have made it this far as a species.