Obedience = Morality?

[Jolly_Penguin]

I have noticed a lot of Christians (and even more Muslims) equating morality to obedience to God.

Is there something in the Christian worldview that discourages Christians from having a sense of right and wrong independent of obedience to God? Can Christians here see right and wrong a separate concept from obeying authority?

Can you see how empathy can be a basis of morality? Or is that not relevant?

When I see a Christian ask "If you truly don't believe in God, why don't you go killing and raping?" I truly wonder about, and indeed fear the questioner. If they lost their faith in God would they really start doing these things? Do these individuals really have no moral compass of their own besides obedience to authority?

Finally, I don't claim that all Christians think this way. But a lot seem to and I want to know why.

[heavensgate]

[Replying to post 18 by Goat]

I don't see how understanding the mechanism behind an emotion devalues the emotion. That seems to be an irrational claim.

It is rational if the supposed mechanism is false to start with. A false presumption that disregards our unique human status in the universe has devastating effects.
Racism, eugenics, sexism. Much of the sorrow that falls out of just these three (and there are more as you know) comes from the supposition that we are after all, just a bag of chemicals.
It also devalues to the point where in the final analysis, when the universe moves on, when we are annihilated by the ravages of dust, there is no hope that beyond our mere existence, there is any worth except what the society at the time values.
However, Morality is transcendent over the mores of society, a non-belief in that morality, really just makes you no more than a bag of atoms. If I am not more than a bag of atoms, my life span just a few decades, and if I am a poor boy or a rich boy, how does that make for an increased value in society, how does that put value in any emotion except a purely utilitarian one?

[heavensgate]

I don't see how understanding the mechanism behind an emotion devalues the emotion. That seems to be an irrational claim.

Like saying that having two arms would be of more value to us if they were given to us by a god than if they're a result of evolution.

Don't mock too much Artie,
Those God given arms are the source of much creativity, that reflects Gods own creativity.
So, your music, artwork, in fact anything you may use arms for, but especially the spiritual arty side of you has a lot to do with physical arms and it proves creation that arms can do just those things.

[heavensgate]

I think the real definition of ‘good’ is more Godlike and is seated in our emotions, our empathy, and our will, to seek someone else’s welfare, even if we are not travelling that well ourselves. This really is good, and is so contrary to the evolutionary hypothesis.

This approach is very dangerous, because it implies that we are to be like a deity. Though we were created in Adonai's image, the idea of becoming like Adonai is was the first temptation. We are not to be godlike, we are to be as we were created to be. I think the better argument is that of an owner's manual and a demonstrator model.

I think it is more like 'we should be more like Adonai'. What is the point of making us in His image which is not temporal, but to exhibit attributes of His very personality.
The actual substance of God is quite different to ours though, but this is the difference between us and other animals. We do love because "God is Love'.
Yes, I agree, the desire for total independence, as God Himself has, is our crowning failure. Any good friend, or preacher will remind himself and others of this fact.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 18 by Goat]

I don't see how understanding the mechanism behind an emotion devalues the emotion. That seems to be an irrational claim.

It is rational if the supposed mechanism is false to start with. A false presumption that disregards our unique human status in the universe has devastating effects.
Racism, eugenics, sexism. Much of the sorrow that falls out of just these three (and there are more as you know) comes from the supposition that we are after all, just a bag of chemicals.
It also devalues to the point where in the final analysis, when the universe moves on, when we are annihilated by the ravages of dust, there is no hope that beyond our mere existence, there is any worth except what the society at the time values.
However, Morality is transcendent over the mores of society, a non-belief in that morality, really just makes you no more than a bag of atoms. If I am not more than a bag of atoms, my life span just a few decades, and if I am a poor boy or a rich boy, how does that make for an increased value in society, how does that put value in any emotion except a purely utilitarian one?

Gosh, more claims that do not have support. You make lots and lots of emotional claims.. yet, I don't see you doing anything but making false claims about what the opposition thinks, claims or feels. You take issues that are emotional hot buttons, and then lay the claim , without support , that those issues were caused by considering 'man nothing is a bunch of chemicals'. Building straw men, and then attacking those positions, making false claims , and misrepresenting what other people think is irrational.

Do you have any real argument rather than demonizing and misrepresenting those people who disagree with you?

[Artie]

It is rational if the supposed mechanism is false to start with. A false presumption that disregards our unique human status in the universe has devastating effects.
Racism, eugenics, sexism. Much of the sorrow that falls out of just these three (and there are more as you know) comes from the supposition that we are after all, just a bag of chemicals.

Most bags of chemicals evolved to have logic, reason, common sense, empathy, altruism, compassion, conscience, respect for others, self-respect, feel love, duty, obligation, responsibility, obey the laws, the Golden Rule, have morals, ethics etc etc. which is why we don't need to be told that murder is morally wrong. Some bags of chemicals however don't have these guidelines to a moral life and are easily confused but if we can get them to believe in God and Jesus and have God command them not to murder and have Jesus tell them to live by the Golden Rule and they obey at least they are less of a threat to the rest of us. That's what religion is for. If you know some irrational and immoral people please try to make them join some Christian denomination because that would be good for society as a whole.

[Jolly_Penguin]

Sociopaths do exist, having no sense of right and wrong, no empathy, no independent morality. You would think that creating a powerful authority figure that can do them harm if they don't behave could keep them in line, and therefore that religion serves a good purpose. Having them think the authority is watching them everywhere and always and that they can't get away with anything without the authority seeing it is bound to help, right?

But the human mind is good at finding ways to rationalize behaviour, and the holy books, and especially the Bible, are quite ambiguous. You can find justification for just about anything, from charity to atrocity, in the bible, depending on how you read and interpret it.

So maybe sociopaths use the religion as a tool to do their bidding more than they are controlled by the religion. It would be interesting to see that research.

That said, I really don't think many religious people are sociopaths. Sociopaths are rare. Most human beings have a sense of empathy, and an internal moral sense of right and wrong. I think most people who seem not to, and seem to confuse morality with obedience to power have just buried it so far beneath the dogma that they forget it is there, leading to questions like "How can you be good without God?" and statements like "there is no justification for morality on atheism".

[heavensgate]

Sociopaths do exist, having no sense of right and wrong, no empathy, no independent morality. You would think that creating a powerful authority figure that can do them harm if they don't behave could keep them in line, and therefore that religion serves a good purpose. Having them think the authority is watching them everywhere and always and that they can't get away with anything without the authority seeing it is bound to help, right?

But the human mind is good at finding ways to rationalize behaviour, and the holy books, and especially the Bible, are quite ambiguous. You can find justification for just about anything, from charity to atrocity, in the bible, depending on how you read and interpret it.

So maybe sociopaths use the religion as a tool to do their bidding more than they are controlled by the religion. It would be interesting to see that research.

That said, I really don't think many religious people are sociopaths. Sociopaths are rare. Most human beings have a sense of empathy, and an internal moral sense of right and wrong. I think most people who seem not to, and seem to confuse morality with obedience to power have just buried it so far beneath the dogma that they forget it is there, leading to questions like "How can you be good without God?" and statements like "there is no justification for morality on atheism".

The idea that religion is for the sole purpose is itself not getting the point. Love is in the world because of God, regardless of commitment to God, because He made us that way. Why would love be a logical outcome of evolution for example. I would think quite to opposite in a survival oriented primordial scenario.
Morality is an offshoot of the morality or nature of God, in whose image we are all created.
I cannot see from the bible that God or the Law is there to keep people in line. This is much more akin to Islam which is neither biblical nor rational in relating the personality of God to His religion or creation.
What generally is ignored in these discussions is the over arching principle of Man responding to God, for no other reason than that He is Creator, has Personality, has created with Purpose. Leave morality out of it for a moment and the discussion takes on a more relevant tone when we are talking about God. When we talk of morality we are merely navel gazing.

[heavensgate]

It is rational if the supposed mechanism is false to start with. A false presumption that disregards our unique human status in the universe has devastating effects.
Racism, eugenics, sexism. Much of the sorrow that falls out of just these three (and there are more as you know) comes from the supposition that we are after all, just a bag of chemicals.

Most bags of chemicals evolved to have logic, reason, common sense, empathy, altruism, compassion, conscience, respect for others, self-respect, feel love, duty, obligation, responsibility, obey the laws, the Golden Rule, have morals, ethics etc etc. which is why we don't need to be told that murder is morally wrong. Some bags of chemicals however don't have these guidelines to a moral life and are easily confused but if we can get them to believe in God and Jesus and have God command them not to murder and have Jesus tell them to live by the Golden Rule and they obey at least they are less of a threat to the rest of us. That's what religion is for. If you know some irrational and immoral people please try to make them join some Christian denomination because that would be good for society as a whole.

A simple Google search on say "human violence' or something similar will some idea of the absolute constancy in which the human race behaves over time and in given circumstances. We are I must say at least consistent. What you do not mention above, is how this modern morality actually came about. (BTW this morality is by no means consistent even in our middle calls comfortable western world and view.) The struggle from violent and oppressive regimes has been a long and hard struggle, which in no way can be attributed to this bag of atoms suddenly getting a conscience. Some of the greatest benefits to our current western freedoms can be directly attributed to Christianity (not religion), or rather, I should say, Christ Himself. Even secular commentators can recognise this as an agent for social transformation.

[heavensgate]

[Replying to post 24 by Goat]

Where is the Straw man Goat? I think just a cursory glance at modern history will be more than enough to support my claims. You will forgive me Goat but I do read history and philosophy and these also support my statements. I suggest perhaps some Manetho (Egypt), Some Herodotus (Greek) or perhaps some Tacitus (Roman) or even some Josephus (Jewish) of how life has always been and the morality that has been constant in the world. Or perhaps some more modern writers of the last 150 years will tell an even worse story. I should not have to spell these out in this forum to be scientific. I would expect people to do their own homework. What you ask of me you must also put into practice yourself and respond with the science behind your refutations. Strawman, strawman, strawman. What you need to do is to scientifically refute my claims on the nature of man. The quotes re man being nothing but a bag of chemicals comes from atheists, not Christians, so you need to answer this directly.
BTW, you are demanding perhaps a scientific approach to debate. Some things are still beyond science (such as morality)(and God) so to present information out of the box is just not possible in a scientific format at all times.

[jerryxplu]

[Replying to Jolly_Penguin]

Morality is different from Obedience. For example, there are people who think God is literally talking to them and telling them to do things. If obedience is moral then their killing will be moral. But morality to me have to do with harming other physically and mentally. Most Christians or religious group I spoke to believe that there is no morality without god. So to them they are not a moral agent, they will do whatever they think God want them to do. It doesn't matter what they think for they are flawed and do not know better. If God tell them to do evil things such as killing of innocent or kill their own kids. Will they doubt God? Is questioning God not a sin?