Religion/God is the basis for morals.

[JoeyKnothead]

I've seen several members make the claim that Religion/God is responsible for morals. When challenged it seems as if the topic kinda veers away. Thus, I have created this thread here so we can flesh this one out all by itself.

How/Why is religion/God responsible for giving us morals?
Why should we discount the many passages in religious texts that point to immoral acts being done by the given God?

The topic, stay on it.

[bernee51]

I've seen several members make the claim that Religion/God is responsible for morals. When challenged it seems as if the topic kinda veers away. Thus, I have created this thread here so we can flesh this one out all by itself.

How/Why is religion/God responsible for giving us morals?
Why should we discount the many passages in religious texts that point to immoral acts being done by the given God?

The topic, stay on it.

I was going to start a similar thread Joey - but coming from the other direction - why can't morality be a consequence of an evolutionary process? If not from god, whence morals?

To add some meat to the discussion I will add my bit here. It comments more on why god is not necessary rather than give reasons why he/she/it must be a pre-condition for moral behaviour.

On many occasions the challenge has been laid as to the origin of moral behaviour. At one end of the spectrum we have the theist who believes morality is and can only be sourced in a god. At the other there are those, not necessarily but usually atheist, who would hold that the development of morality is a natural evolutionary process.

It is my view that moral behaviour developed as a direct consequence of the evolution of reflective consciousness and that this path can be traced. Moral behaviour, rather than be an appendage superimposed on our biology, is intrinsic in evolution in that it is essential to the survival of the species. This does not address, however, its origin.

Let’s view the steps…

Life is not an accident in the material universe but the necessary and unescapable consequence of the phenomenon. The development of the universe to how we now perceive it has been a process of increasing complexity. If life is stripped of all its anatomical and physiological superstructure down to its essential physico-chemical nature it shows itself to be a straightforward process of increasing complication whereby matter contrives to arrange itself in particles of increasing volume, ever more highly organised. From nuclei, atoms, molecules, cells and metazoa the properties of life emerge solely due to the virtually infinite potential for complexity.

With this increasing complexity comes the potential for centering and interiorization - to endow itself with consciousness. Reflective consciousness (man) is not an incident of the biological world but a ‘higher’ form of life. It is the inescapable consequence of the ‘complexification’ of consciousness which brought with it, in man, the powers of foresight and invention. In the human world the social phenomenon, of which morality is part, is not a superficial arrangement, not something imposed from without, but an essential advance of ‘reflection’.

If anything, god belief, and the attendent religions, restrict moral development as they are by their very nature divisive. They not only encourage but promote a defined and inflexible morality.

[Nameless]

I've seen several members make the claim that Religion/God is responsible for morals. When challenged it seems as if the topic kinda veers away. Thus, I have created this thread here so we can flesh this one out all by itself.

How/Why is religion/God responsible for giving us morals?
Why should we discount the many passages in religious texts that point to immoral acts being done by the given God?

The topic, stay on it.

From a Judeo/Xtian Perspective, 'morality', and the exercise of such, is 'sin'.
'Morality' is the attribution 'good' and 'evil/bad'; judgement.
We did not create the universe yet we pridefully take the position of the creator and 'judge'! 'Sin'!
Sin is 'pride' (the 'set' from which spring all other (subsets) sin-lets).
What is the 'original sin'?
We disobeyed a direct command and ate from the forbidden tree of the 'Knowledge of Good and Evil'.
We 'stole' our 'morality' from god, yet...
Odd how Xtians flaunt that ill-gotten and oft practiced (prideful) 'sin' in their god's face every day!

[QED]

There is more that transcends individual behaviour and decision making than God. Game Theory and Ethics supplies a transcendent framework that is perfectly adequate for the job.

It's easy to see that it takes something more than the individual, but some people conclude that this something must be God without considering the natural alternative described in that Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy link above.

[JoeyKnothead]

I will assume the posters who have made this declaration have recanted.

[QED]

I've been vectoring people to this thread on a daily basis but nobody seems to want to stand by the assertion in the title.

[Cathar1950]

I will assume the posters who have made this declaration have recanted.

Maybe God told them not to talk to us because it would be immoral.
I am watching "The Life of Mammals" and two lions had a water buffalo when the heard decided to put an end to their plans. The lions intelligently left without their prey.
The buffalo did the moral thing without being moral.
Sin seems to largely be disobedience including the NT and would not qualify as moral actions even if it is a morally correct. nless you think the divine commad theory is somehow moral.
It would be obedience. How does God judge what is right and how would are judgements be any different except for not knowing everything?

[thebluetriangle]

Life is not an accident in the material universe but the necessary and unescapable consequence of the phenomenon.

I don't think I need to go any further into your argument than here.

'Necessary and inescapable' because of what? The anthropic principle? You seem to be implying that the universe had to give rise to life. In an atheistic, uncreated universe, I don't think life is necessary and inescapable at all.

Life in the universe has certainly evolved, but the universe itself had to be suitable for the evolution of life in the first place, something that either required the initial conditions to be incredibly accurately fine tuned, or that some kind of outside intervention has been happening.

1. In an atheistic, uncaused universe, there is no reason why life should exist at all. In fact there is no reason why there should be anything at all, even a lifeless universe. One either has to assume that random universes are popping into existence all the time, and we happen to exist within the 1-in-a-quadrillion universes that happen by accident to be fine-tuned for the evolution of life, or we have to assume that this universe is a one-off, that happens, by chance, to be fine-tuned for life. The first possibility is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. The second possibility is fabulously unlikely.

This problem doesn't exist in a universe that was designed. Of course, there is the problem of explaining where the designer came from, but there are possible solutions to that. I'd just like to mention one thing, though. Just because we still have to explain where the designer came from, that doesn't mean to say that we cannot view the fact that the universe seems to be fine-tuned for life as evidence that a designer exists. We can examine a car and conclude that it was designed to be driven without explaining how or why or by whom it was designed.

This may sound like Paley's watch analogy, but there is a difference: natural selection requires there to be a large number of lifeforms, all in competition with each other. It cannot operate on one organism. Neither could some kind of selection process operate (as far as we can tell) on one universe. The fundamental constants were there at the beginning of the universe and so I would propose that the universe was, in some sense, designed by something outside it. We may not be able to explain how the designer came into being, but I think that the existence of a universe fine-tuned for life is evidence that it was designed to be that way.

2. If the universe was not fine-tuned for life but became so by outside intervention, this is itself evidence that a designer exists in time, improving the design as required as the universe expands.

I don't think it's a necessarily a case of a Deist's designer winding up the watch (to continue with the Paley analogy) and then letting it run, either. The designer could exist in eternity (outside of the timestream) and create a life-filled universe either instantaneously, which then appears to evolve over time, or the designer could be continually choosing an optimum universe, or a continuum of probable universes, from a multitude of probabilistic alternatives. This would be equivalent to a Creator God who is actively involved with His creations.

Either way, it seems to me that the case for life requiring a consciously-designed universe is stronger than the case for life evolving within an accidental one.

[JoeyKnothead]

Life is not an accident in the material universe but the necessary and unescapable consequence of the phenomenon.

I don't think I need to go any further into your argument than here.

'Necessary and inescapable' because of what? The anthropic principle? You seem to be implying that the universe had to give rise to life. In an atheistic, uncreated universe, I don't think life is necessary and inescapable at all.

Given the many ways in which chemicals can combine, the many chemicals there are, and the vast amount of time involved, I see no problem with the notion that life would be all but inevitable. This is far more plausible than some being up in the sky blowing on dust.

Life in the universe has certainly evolved, but the universe itself had to be suitable for the evolution of life in the first place, something that either required the initial conditions to be incredibly accurately fine tuned, or that some kind of outside intervention has been happening.

Water, meet puddle. Puddle, meet water.

1. In an atheistic, uncaused universe, there is no reason why life should exist at all. In fact there is no reason why there should be anything at all, even a lifeless universe. One either has to assume that random universes are popping into existence all the time, and we happen to exist within the 1-in-a-quadrillion universes that happen by accident to be fine-tuned for the evolution of life, or we have to assume that this universe is a one-off, that happens, by chance, to be fine-tuned for life. The first possibility is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. The second possibility is fabulously unlikely.

Fine tuned again? How come I can't fly, that would be the ultimate. How come I can't breath under water? how come I can't jump up to the moon? Life is only as fine tuned as it has adapted to its environment.

This problem doesn't exist in a universe that was designed. Of course, there is the problem of explaining where the designer came from, but there are possible solutions to that. I'd just like to mention one thing, though. Just because we still have to explain where the designer came from, that doesn't mean to say that we cannot view the fact that the universe seems to be fine-tuned for life as evidence that a designer exists. We can examine a car and conclude that it was designed to be driven without explaining how or why or by whom it was designed.

We can trace the full production of a car back to the source. There is no reason for us to believe anything other than a car is the product of humans. Evolution has a tendency to 'fine tune' life to its environment.

This may sound like Paley's watch analogy, but there is a difference: natural selection requires there to be a large number of lifeforms, all in competition with each other. It cannot operate on one organism. Neither could some kind of selection process operate (as far as we can tell) on one universe.

Natural selection only comes into play when there are replicating organisms, this only requires one replicating organism and its replicant, and not the large number you say.

The fundamental constants were there at the beginning of the universe and so I would propose that the universe was, in some sense, designed by something outside it. We may not be able to explain how the designer came into being, but I think that the existence of a universe fine-tuned for life is evidence that it was designed to be that way.

You have given absolutely no proof the 'universe is fine tuned for life'. ToE clearly shows how life forms become adapted to their surroundings.

2. If the universe was not fine-tuned for life but became so by outside intervention, this is itself evidence that a designer exists in time, improving the design as required as the universe expands.

And if there is no evidence for a 'designer', then we can safely assume there is no designer. Please provide evidence the 'design' of the universe is 'required to improve' with expansion.

I don't think it's a necessarily a case of a Deist's designer winding up the watch (to continue with the Paley analogy) and then letting it run, either. The designer could exist in eternity (outside of the timestream) and create a life-filled universe either instantaneously, which then appears to evolve over time, or the designer could be continually choosing an optimum universe, or a continuum of probable universes, from a multitude of probabilistic alternatives. This would be equivalent to a Creator God who is actively involved with His creations.

Unsupported assertion? Or horse hockey?

Either way, it seems to me that the case for life requiring a consciously-designed universe is stronger than the case for life evolving within an accidental one.

That's all good and all, and I appreciate your time, but what does anything you've said here have to do with the TOPIC OF THE OP?

[nygreenguy]

The fundamental constants were there at the beginning of the universe and so I would propose that the universe was, in some sense, designed by something outside it.

How do you reach this conclusion?