Why Secular Morality is Superior

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Secular morality is no more than a fashion statement. It never progresses. It merely changes.

I think secular morality is a meaningless term anyway, because nothing in the treaty of Westphalia places a diktat as to how 'morality' should be viewed aside from the fact it should be inspired by a non-accountable central religious hierarchy. If we're going to say secular morality then we're including everyone who is an advocate of secularism, be they atheist or theist (which I'm sure many would contest).

And in my opinion, change is progress. On can view it forward of backwards depending on the position one is perceiving it from, but it's still progress.

But I do agree, I don't think an enforced morality is one that will ever succeed, adding weight the idea of an evolved moral legitimacy informed by the context to which it exists in.

[downbeatplumb]

Secular morality is no more than a fashion statement. It never progresses. It merely changes.

Why can these changes never be progress?

Theistic morality neither progresses or changes.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

EDIT to the above. Should = shouldn't (can't edit it now).

[fr0d0]

If you do good because of fear or coercion then you didn't choose of your own volition.

Choice is always a component between deciding upon more than one path. I would rather do good because it is the right thing to do, not because a biblical magical sky daddy has informed me that I must be good or suffer the consequences.

You just repeated the statement that this was a response to. If anyone did anything because someone else informed them to, it wouldn't be their moral choice would it? Not that I know if any Christian that does this.

[Silver]

Not that I know if any Christian that does this.

Of course, they do. They believe in Him because they do not want to burn in Hell for upsetting sky daddy.

[DeistPaladin]

A judge can try to make a moral decision but he is limited by information. So his decision could be unjust/ immoral.

Morality has nothing to do with honest mistakes due to insufficient information. A judge or mistakenly sentences an innocent man because all the evidence seemed to point to his guilt is not immoral, just wrong.

God, being all knowing, is in a position to make that call.

And so morality exists outside of and independent to God. God, to you, is the being knowledgeable enough and wise enough to measure and determine what is moral. Then morality is something that can theoretically be discovered without God. And what is "good" and "bad" would remain so even if God tried to say otherwise, died, went away or turned out never to have existed at all.

This view contradicts the view John V offered, that God decides what is moral. Morality is a set of rules made up arbitrarily by a being. God decides what is good or bad by divine fiat. This "morality" is fabricated by a being, however wise or powerful you may attribute this being to be, and so is neither "objective" nor "absolute", by the definition of these terms. John V's theistic morality is based entirely on a concept of "might makes right" and he even said so.

The mafia judge represents secular morality here. John V makes a very good point... popularity is all that keeps his morality from being law.

No, the victimization of another, the violations of the rights of others, is not moral.

Christian morality bases itself upon the idea of an all knowing God being capable of absolute morality.

John V's theistic morality involves a god who makes up the rules of what is "right" or "wrong". This is not "absolute", especially when the god of the Bible can say "don't kill" one day and "kill everyone in this town" the next day.

But if you are correct that God simply determines what is or is not moral though infinite wisdom and knowledge, then morality exists outside of God, potentially to be discovered by anyone. So what do we need God for?

Either way, you fail.

Now this is the part where Islamo-Christian apologists try to argue the "both yet neither" option where they babble about God being the essence of goodness yatta yatta.

[DeistPaladin]

Secular morality is no more than a fashion statement. It never progresses. It merely changes.

Really?

There was once a time when aggressive warfare was simply politics as usual. If you were stronger than your neighbors, you invaded and took their stuff. The sordid history of empire-building as well as the accounts in the OT (by your gods orders) show this to have once been the case.

Today, aggression is recognized as a war crime. John V will be quick to point out "oh yeah, well it still happens". Unfortunately yes, see W Bush for an example. But society as a whole still recognizes that it's bad and seeks to punish it (W and Cheney can't fly outside America for fear of arrest). We're no longer in the justifying it stage. We're in the trying-to-stamp-it-out phase.

Same thing with rape. It should have been a simple thing for your god to outlaw. Instead, we've had to take the slow path. We're increasingly recognizing it's a bad thing, that it's not justifiable by how she dresses or whatever, and we're in the stage of trying to stamp it out.

Same thing with racism and equality

Same thing with sexism and equality

Same thing with slavery

On down the list. Humans are evolving not just biologically but also morally.

[fr0d0]

Secular morality is no more than a fashion statement. It never progresses. It merely changes.

Why can these changes never be progress?

Theistic morality neither progresses or changes.

If an ultimate morality could change it wouldn't be true would it.

We might call it progress when it's in effect a backward step. Only with hindsight can we appreciate that. To us we're the best we could be. We genuinely believe that.

---

Not that I know if any Christian that does this.

Of course, they do. They believe in Him because they do not want to burn in Hell for upsetting sky daddy.

If you say so. The bible says the opposite though.

And this is not then a choice then is it. The person isn't making any moral decision.

---

A judge can try to make a moral decision but he is limited by information. So his decision could be unjust/ immoral.

Morality has nothing to do with honest mistakes due to insufficient information. A judge or mistakenly sentences an innocent man because all the evidence seemed to point to his guilt is not immoral, just wrong.

That's what immoral is. Wrong decisions. If in your head the information points to rape being morally right, are you not acting immorally when you commit rape?

---

And so morality exists outside of and independent to God. God, to you, is the being knowledgeable enough and wise enough to measure and determine what is moral. Then morality is something that can theoretically be discovered without God. And what is "good" and "bad" would remain so even if God tried to say otherwise, died, went away or turned out never to have existed at all.

Ultimate Morality isn't knowable to any being that isn't all knowing. Unless you can present any other being besides a god that has this ability.

Flawed secular morality is a human attribute which can logically be understood by evolution. What I'd good and bad according to secular morality changes according to the balance of power and whatever else is in the interest of the majority.

---

This view contradicts the view John V offered, that God decides what is moral. Morality is a set of rules made up arbitrarily by a being. God decides what is good or bad by divine fiat. This "morality" is fabricated by a being, however wise or powerful you may attribute this being to be, and so is neither "objective" nor "absolute", by the definition of these terms. John V's theistic morality is based entirely on a concept of "might makes right" and he even said so.

You seem to be claiming to know what God thinks. John said that secular morality equated to "might makes right", which is exactly what it is.
God doesn't "decide" what is moral. God is perfectly moral. That is what divine goodness is. You seem to need to destroy this observation to make your pointless claim. God forces nothing, or you wouldn't have the choice to act immorally. Whether or not you choose to accept morality is up to you. Hell is the immediate just reward for immorality.

---

The mafia judge represents secular morality here. John V makes a very good point... popularity is all that keeps his morality from being law.

No, the victimization of another, the violations of the rights of others, is not moral.

Tosh.

It's victimisation as long as it happens to be what you disagree with. In a society where your view was a minority one, secular law would punish you.

Your moral correctness is decided by the majority vote.

---

On down the list. Humans are evolving not just biologically but also morally.

All I see you addressing here is the historical proof of the failure of secular morality to act with justice. Never once do you address divine morality. It seems that you don't understand what it is.

[DeistPaladin]

That's what immoral is. Wrong decisions.

Wrong. Mistakes based on faulty information are not immoral. They are simply mistakes. Sweet Reason, is your understanding of morality so remedial that I have to explain this to you?

Ultimate Morality isn't knowable to any being that isn't all knowing.

1. If something isn't knowable, how do you know it exists?
2. All things that exist are knowable by the following logic:

• If it exists, it can be observed
  
• If it can be observed, it can be studied
  
• If it can be studied, it can be understood
  
• If it can be understood, it can be explained
  
• If it can be explained, it is knowable
  

Flawed secular morality is a human attribute which can logically be understood by evolution. What I'd good and bad according to secular morality changes according to the balance of power and whatever else is in the interest of the majority.

You keep asserting that. Assertions, however often repeated, do not make something true.

You seem to be claiming to know what God thinks.

Not sure where you're getting that.

John said that secular morality equated to "might makes right", which is exactly what it is.

Let's go to the tape then...

God is portrayed as the judge. A judge can morally sentence someone to death. A mafia don cannot. Actually, within the mafia’s morality, the mafia don can morally sentence someone to death. Society considers that immoral. Since society as a whole has more power than the mafia, if he’s caught, he goes to jail. People don’t like the phrase, but in the end, might does make right for all practical purposes.

He can clarify his position if he likes. It's only fair, since he might have mispoke as I did. But he seems to be saying might makes right for ALL practical purposes. He doesn't seem to be making an exception for God. In fact, his allusions to judges in human institutions seems to indicate to the contrary.

However, if he does wish to make a special exception for God, on what basis would he suggest this exception be made? How can we know that God's justice is moral? By who's standards? God's? This would be circular reasoning.

By definition, if a being is deciding what is or is not moral, this is not "objective" because it depends on a being's opinions or judgment. Neither is it "absolute" because a being can change his/her/its mind.

God doesn't "decide" what is moral. God is perfectly moral. That is what divine goodness is.

Thank you. Delivered on cue.

First, we have the bare assertion that God is perfectly moral. Then we follow with the circular reasoning that since God is perfectly moral, all of God's decisions are moral. And since God's decisions are moral, we know that God is moral. So we know that God is good because God is good and that's how we know God is good.

You seem to need to destroy this observation to make your pointless claim.

Bare assertions are not "observations".

Hell is the immediate just reward for immorality.

No, Hell is the punishment for non-belief. Morality doesn't enter into it. The only criteria is gullibility and being luck enough to be indoctrinated correctly.

Tosh.

It's victimisation as long as it happens to be what you disagree with. In a society where your view was a minority one, secular law would punish you.

Human beings are sovereign. Rights are not about opinions.

Your moral correctness is decided by the majority vote.

Nope.

All I see you addressing here is the historical proof of the failure of secular morality to act with justice.

Evolution is a slow path, regrettably. It would be nice if we'd had a god who could tell us rape and genocide are wrong but neither your Bible nor reality offered us one.

Never once do you address divine morality. It seems that you don't understand what it is.

Neither do you.

[downbeatplumb]

Why can these changes never be progress?

Theistic morality neither progresses or changes.

If an ultimate morality could change it wouldn't be true would it.

We might call it progress when it's in effect a backward step. Only with hindsight can we appreciate that. To us we're the best we could be. We genuinely believe that.

This is the most moral time in human history as a result of religions being rejected.

Look at Iran and the middle east in general to see what happens when theistic morality is in charge, it was the same sad tale of overly oppressive punishments here when christianity ruled the roost.

You know this to be true.

I have no doubt that you yourself are a good moral man, but that is despite your religion not because of it.