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.

[cnorman18]

To try to get away from evolution (yawn) and back to the intended topic of this thread (you're welcome, Joey):

Some theists seem to hold that God is the source of morality; that is, that good is good and evil evil only because God says so and for no other reason.

Obvious corollary; If God had decided that feeding a hungry, destitute child was an immoral act, it would be; and if He had decided that breaking that child's bones and laughing at its agony was a good and moral act, why, that would be true as well.

This is pretty clearly nonsense.

The objection has been made that God "would not do that," but the question then follows, why ever not? If morality is merely God's arbitrary decision and has no other source nor meaning, then that would be the case. What authority says that God would or would not do anything, other than God Himself?

In Jewish belief, right out front, God is responsible to a moral code that is higher than He. This is explicit in Genesis 18, where Abraham argues with God about the fate of Sodom on the basis of such a code. The relevant quote is, "And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? .... That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked; and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee; Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?" (Gen. 18:23, 25)

Judaism also teaches that God does not always live up to that higher standard, or appears not to. For instance, concerning the repeated commands to utterly exterminate various enemies of the Hebrews in the OT and essentially massacre whole cities, which commands are mentioned often enough around here, it is rarely noted that, as often as not, Moses fails to carry out those commands and spares some or most of the people, particularly the women and children. It should also be noted that in other cases where Moses purportedly did as commanded, those people show up again later in the narrative, and in numbers still large enough to cause the Hebrews problems; we may therefore conclude that Moses didn't kill them all in those cases, either.

One strand of Jewish thought maintains that by refusing to carry out those brutal commands, Moses proved himself morally superior to God. Another says that those commands were actually a test, to see if Moses would defy God and do what he knew to be right, as opposed to blindly obeying a morally indefensible command (as Abraham did when ordered to sacrifice his son Isaac). According to that school of thought, Moses passed the test while Abraham did not.

In any case, morality has a reality of its own independent of God's, in the Jewish understanding. Even those branches of Judaism that are equivocal about God's very existence - or deny it - maintain that morality remains.

It should also be noted that, though God may have taught various moral principles to humans, He was not their ultimate source (except in the problematic role of Creator; but even if He did create the world with morality built-in, so to speak, He now has no authority to change it). It is also true that in Jewish belief, it remains the responsibility of humans to figure out the proper application of those principles in concrete reality and in any particular case. Most of the Talmud is taken up with precisely that kind of discussion.

Most foreign to Christian thought is the Jewish idea that our decisions in these matters are in effect the very will of God, because that authority has been delegated to us. The practical standards of morality in Judaism are not determined by Scripture or even by God Himself, but by rational human thought; and that means - drum roll, please - humans are empowered to change them as time and circumstances demand it. "The Torah is not in Heaven" is the principle; it is in our hands, and moral judgments and decisions are our responsibility, not God's.

It is worth noting, though, that in some religions, morality is entirely arbitrary; and the mass murder of innocents (by way of committing suicide, no less) is not only a perfectly moral act, but a sacred and entirely admirable one, something to teach to one's children as their highest and most holy aspiration.

I don't even know how to begin to comment on such a belief.

Now there's a God I can believe in. I find the notions that whatever God decides is right and just to be a bit hypocritical. When God is beholden to His own laws, then its a lot easier for me to think He could be 'up there'. I also like the idea that 'moral judgments and decisions our our responsibility, not God's'. This forces us to to look to ourselves, and be beholden to how we treat others, regardless of whether we think God would want us to harm another.

Thanks, Joey. I obviously agree. I was a Christian for 50 years, but somehow I never quite got all the way onto the bus. Since I found Judaism, I continue to be astonished at its deep wisdom, its humanity, and its realism about human nature and its limitations.

For those reading this who think that any belief in God in any sense negates any claim Judaism may have to wisdom, humanity, and realism - peace to you, but there are many much more important concerns than the nature and existence of God, and the low priority of those matters is built into Judaism, too.

[thebluetriangle]

2. It is extremely unlikely that these forces just happened to have the values they have by chance.

3. Therefore the values of these fundamental constants appear to have been 'preset', for the purpose of ensuring that life as we know it evolved. In other words, they were designed.

Let's say that the 4,294,967,296 humans capable of it, were entered into a coin tossing competition. Each would be paired with another and based on a coin toss, one of each pair would win. The 2,147,483,648 winners would pair off and compete against each other, leaving 1,073,741,824. Next round 536,870,912 then 268,435,456; 134,217,728; 67,108,864; 33,554,432; 16,777,216; 8,388,608; 4,194,304; 2,097,152; 1,048,576; 524,288; 262,144; 131,072; 65,536; 32,768; 16,384; 8,192; 4,096; 2,048; 1,024; 512; 256; 128; 64; 32; 16; 8; 4; 2 and eventually one single world champion coin tosser. Even though every coin toss was fair and random, the winner would probably believe that it was not just chance that led him to such an unlikely position. We are that winner. The occurrence of an extremely unlikely event does not prove design.

Are you saying that a vast number of universes has come into existence, and that this is the only one, or one of a few, which has life? This is just a version of the anthropic principle and it is a cop-out argument, the only virtue of which is that it is unfalsifiable.

It also has to assume some unknown process by which a huge number of universes could be continually and randomly popping into existence. Now in a quantum vacuum, particle/antiparticle pairs can appear all the time, as long as they are annihilated a fraction of a second afterwards, but that's not the same as an entire universe/antiuniverse pair appearing and lasting for 14 billion years.

It seems to me far more likely that the initial conditions were preset in some way: if it looks designed, it usually is designed.

[bernee51]

Are you saying that a vast number of universes has come into existence, and that this is the only one, or one of a few, which has life?

It could be that these things pop in and out of existence all the time – inside or ‘outside’ – the known universe and UNLESS the conditions are ‘right’ disappear as quickly as they arise.

This is just a version of the anthropic principle and it is a cop-out argument, the only virtue of which is that it is unfalsifiable.

Which also happens to be the only virtue of a creator deity.

It seems to me far more likely that the initial conditions were preset in some way: if it looks designed, it usually is designed.

Is it continuing to be designed – or did the ‘designer’ just kick-start it at the ’BB’ then let nature take it course.
BTW “…if it looks designed, it usually is designed.� Sounds like something Mr Paley would have said.

[thebluetriangle]

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’.

You are saying or assuming that consciousness a) appeared at some point in the evolutionary process, b) has different degrees of complexity and c) is a higher form of life.

a) How do you know that plants aren't conscious? Or rocks? Maybe consciousness is a fundamental property of everything?

b) I agree that consciousness may well have differing degrees of complexity or intensity.

c) I don't agree here. In fact, it seems to me that consciousness is all. The material component of any living organism is just a channel through which consciousness expresses itself. The human body may just be an extremely sophisticated channel of expression.

I would argue that this consciousness directed evolution in ways that created increasingly effective channels of expression. Society and moral behaviour are further refinements. So morals serve not us as individuals but consciousness. This is what I mean by God being the source of morals.

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.

Religions aren't perfect and they can change only slowly, but they promote peace, love, brotherhood and a spirit of service. They therefore serve consciousness.

[cnorman18]

Are Joey and I the only people here who remember what the OP was?

If you guys want to talk about evolution and intelligent design, would it be too much to ask for you to START ANOTHER THREAD INSTEAD OF HIJACKING THIS ONE?

[bernee51]

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’.

You are saying or assuming that consciousness:
a) appeared at some point in the evolutionary process : YES
b) has different degrees of complexity and : YES
c) is a higher form of life: YES

This discussion would seem to be best suited to a different (new?) thread as it is not directly relevant to the ‘morals only from a god’ issue.

How do you know that plants aren't conscious? Or rocks? Maybe consciousness is a fundamental property of everything?

Consciousness is dependent on the existence of a neural network, the basic units of which are irritable cells. If an organism has a neural network it will have a consciousness

I don't agree here. In fact, it seems to me that consciousness is all. The material component of any living organism is just a channel through which consciousness expresses itself. The human body may just be an extremely sophisticated channel of expression.

This seems to assume that consciousness exists independent of the organism that expresses it.

I would argue that this consciousness directed evolution in ways that created increasingly effective channels of expression. Society and moral behaviour are further refinements. So morals serve not us as individuals but consciousness.

I see it the other way round. Morals are a result of the emergence of reflectivity our or irreflectivity. As consciousness evolved so did the potential for moral behaviour. The emergence of reflectivity gave the reflective mind the ability to further evolve – with intention.

This is what I mean by God being the source of morals.

So ‘god’ is merely consciousness?

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

Religions aren't perfect and they can change only slowly, but they promote peace, love, brotherhood and a spirit of service. They therefore serve consciousness.

Some do. Some don’t. Any religion that professes to represent those who are somehow ‘chosen’ or ‘saved’ is, by its nature, divisive.

[realthinker]

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’.

You are saying or assuming that consciousness a) appeared at some point in the evolutionary process, b) has different degrees of complexity and c) is a higher form of life.

a) How do you know that plants aren't conscious? Or rocks? Maybe consciousness is a fundamental property of everything?

Consciousness can be measured in humans, and I'd guess in animals as well. I don't think that plants or rocks have exhibited such measurable states.

b) I agree that consciousness may well have differing degrees of complexity or intensity.

c) I don't agree here. In fact, it seems to me that consciousness is all. The material component of any living organism is just a channel through which consciousness expresses itself. The human body may just be an extremely sophisticated channel of expression.

Hard for me to believe that a channel of expression would persist after the expression is expired. And a one-shot expression? If something damages your channel of expression to a sufficient degree your expression is simply done? I doubt it. The body is more significant than a "channel of expression".

I would argue that this consciousness directed evolution in ways that created increasingly effective channels of expression. Society and moral behaviour are further refinements. So morals serve not us as individuals but consciousness. This is what I mean by God being the source of morals.

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.

Religions aren't perfect and they can change only slowly, but they promote peace, love, brotherhood and a spirit of service. They therefore serve consciousness.

[thebluetriangle]

Are Joey and I the only people here who remember what the OP was?

If you guys want to talk about evolution and intelligent design, would it be too much to ask for you to START ANOTHER THREAD INSTEAD OF HIJACKING THIS ONE?

Sometimes you have to fill in some background before you can get to the main argument.

By the way, you can make your point without capitalising, just as you can without shouting.

[thebluetriangle]

This discussion would seem to be best suited to a different (new?) thread as it is not directly relevant to the ‘morals only from a god’ issue.

If you want to start a thread on the origins and nature of consciousness, fine. I wasn't intending to go much further along that road, though.

How do you know that plants aren't conscious? Or rocks? Maybe consciousness is a fundamental property of everything?

Consciousness is dependent on the existence of a neural network, the basic units of which are irritable cells. If an organism has a neural network it will have a consciousness

That's just an assertion. Neural networks might give computing power and memory, but that's not the same as consciousness.

I don't agree here. In fact, it seems to me that consciousness is all. The material component of any living organism is just a channel through which consciousness expresses itself. The human body may just be an extremely sophisticated channel of expression.

This seems to assume that consciousness exists independent of the organism that expresses it.

Yes! Consciousness is, I believe, more fundamental than matter. In fact I think it creates matter. I think creation is the fundamental activity of consciousness.

I would argue that this consciousness directed evolution in ways that created increasingly effective channels of expression. Society and moral behaviour are further refinements. So morals serve not us as individuals but consciousness.

I see it the other way round. Morals are a result of the emergence of reflectivity our or irreflectivity. As consciousness evolved so did the potential for moral behaviour. The emergence of reflectivity gave the reflective mind the ability to further evolve – with intention.

I think what has evolved is the ability of consciousness to operate within and manipulate the physical environment it created. The emergence of 'reflectivity' within survival units is a natural development in this direction. Morals, seen in this light, are those strategies that increase the freedom of consciousness. Social morals are only required in a social context and so would have evolved as the need arose. In a social context, moral behaviour would be that which increased the freedom of consciousness as it is expressed though the society, rather than any individual organism within the society. This would give rise to social mores, moral codes, laws, etc, which would at times work against the 'morals of the jungle', which consciousness needed to build into our remote ancestors for its survival through them. This is the source of much social and psychological conflict, of course.

This is what I mean by God being the source of morals.

So ‘god’ is merely consciousness?

I think consciousness is an inadequate word for God, but that's essentially what I mean. I think there may well be a spectrum of conscious awareness, expressed through different lifeforms. Also, in human societies different moral codes allow different qualities of awareness to be expressed. I think consciousness always seeks to create new and better expressions, though, which is the purpose of life.

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

Religions aren't perfect and they can change only slowly, but they promote peace, love, brotherhood and a spirit of service. They therefore serve consciousness.

Some do. Some don’t. Any religion that professes to represent those who are somehow ‘chosen’ or ‘saved’ is, by its nature, divisive.

As I said religions aren't perfect, Jehovah's Witnesses used to believe that only 144000 were going to be saved (they may still believe so), but but the vast majority of religions are far more generous. Christians want all to be saved.

The Christian path has a value that may not be obvious to those on the outside, related to a wrong turning that I think we have made. The structure of our beliefs about ourselves have created a trap for consciousness, part of which becomes separated into an 'ego consciousness'. Christianity is a solution to this problem.

[bernee51]

How do you know that plants aren't conscious? Or rocks? Maybe consciousness is a fundamental property of everything?

Consciousness is dependent on the existence of a neural network, the basic units of which are irritable cells. If an organism has a neural network it will have a consciousness

That's just an assertion. Neural networks might give computing power and memory, but that's not the same as consciousness.

Can I respectfully suggest a quick read of Seeing Red by Nicholas Humprey. He outlines a very credible mechanism that shows how consciousness has evolved because of and along with neural networks.

An example of consciousness without a neural network would be appreciated.

I don't agree here. In fact, it seems to me that consciousness is all. The material component of any living organism is just a channel through which consciousness expresses itself. The human body may just be an extremely sophisticated channel of expression.

This seems to assume that consciousness exists independent of the organism that expresses it.

Yes! Consciousness is, I believe, more fundamental than matter. In fact I think it creates matter. I think creation is the fundamental activity of consciousness.

This is pure speculation with no basis other than a ‘subjective feeling’. Can you give me an example of consciousness existing outside of a dependence on matter?

It sounds very Vedantic. Are you a Vedantist?

I would argue that this consciousness directed evolution in ways that created increasingly effective channels of expression. Society and moral behaviour are further refinements. So morals serve not us as individuals but consciousness.

I see it the other way round. Morals are a result of the emergence of reflectivity our or irreflectivity. As consciousness evolved so did the potential for moral behaviour. The emergence of reflectivity gave the reflective mind the ability to further evolve – with intention.

I think what has evolved is the ability of consciousness to operate within and manipulate the physical environment it created. The emergence of 'reflectivity' within survival units is a natural development in this direction.

Without ‘reflectivity’ moral behaviour, behaviour based in an ethic of reciprocity, could not have emerged.

This is what I mean by God being the source of morals.

So ‘god’ is merely consciousness?

I think consciousness is an inadequate word for God, but that's essentially what I mean. I think there may well be a spectrum of conscious awareness, expressed through different lifeforms. Also, in human societies different moral codes allow different qualities of awareness to be expressed. I think consciousness always seeks to create new and better expressions, though, which is the purpose of life.

I agree with the idea that intentional evolution based in an evolution of consciousness is the purpose of life in the human organism.

It is not god in that consciousness has not created the system but emerged from it.

On what basis can you claim that consciousnes has created the system in which it exists.

The Christian path has a value that may not be obvious to those on the outside, related to a wrong turning that I think we have made. The structure of our beliefs about ourselves have created a trap for consciousness, part of which becomes separated into an 'ego consciousness'.

I think we agree - ‘ego consciousness’ is an illusion.

Christianity is a solution to this problem.

That sounds like something Teilard de Chardin would have written