Replacing Religious Morality

[MindForgedManacle]

1) I think what it's about, is that we have a conclusion that we'd like to believe about the nature of our existence, and God is the only answer that leads to the conclusion we want. Not just in morality, but meaning, and not being finite. I'm sure there are some "You're no the boss of me" cards to be played, but the idea of God having some legit authority is pretty reasonable compared to being nice cause nice is nice.

Eh, no. I made a thread in the philosophy forums a month or so back title something like "Argument Against Divine Purpose", so I don't want to rehash everything here. Firstly, you essentially ignore what Genkaus said, which is that offering up God doesn't help with establishing moral realism, nor would his existence entail it being the case. Theists like to offer this up - never with any actual justification - without actually thinking about why it is useless. God is a subject if he exists. God does things based on his set of values, which he didn't choose. And talking about morality as being 'objectively true' has always seemed to be a misnomer to me.

3) The funny thing about my personal 'living the way I want', is I'd prefer to believe in God. It's clearly the better way to go. The comfort of an eternal happy existence, and everybody should be nice to eachother. It's not a mistake it's so popular. It's better (minus it not being true).

Even if you were still a Catholic, you'd be living the way you want. If you chose to abide by God's will (as best you could determine it, in any case), that's still you choosing to do so, because it seems to conform to at least some of your values (sense of worth, continued life after death, a father always there for you, etc.). Again, this is just a value judgement being made.

The reason I bring that up, is that I'm not reverse engineering how to live anymore based on what I wish the world was. I'm trying to do so based on my new 'objective' foundation which is, I'm guessing, mostly biological.

Since morality is about how you ought to act, of course a biological component is going to be crucial. How agents are will affect one's treatment of them. If you were an immortal, impenetrable being, you could expect moral considerations regarding you to be substantially different from a regular person.

---

Like Ryanology, the subsequent replies of MitchBenn and DT reflect a childish and superficial literalism about the nature of God as presented in the deeper meanings of the Holy Scriptures. Perhaps this will clear it up. God represents the highest good, or in neo-Platonic terms, “The Good”. Willing and doing good, because it is good, moves you toward the ultimate good, or God.

As I noted in a recent thread of mine (which you responded to), if you take that position that God is "the Good", then you can no longer use greater good theodicies like Plantinga's Free will Defense, nor can you really explain why God did anything at all, at least not in terms of producing a greater good. Because only God is good under that neo-Platonic view. So taking on that view just exposes more flesh in your belief system.

The more I look, the more I'm finding these Frankenstein theologies...

To do otherwise is to do what is good for the sake of some gain or benefit: to protect your reputation, avoid the sting of conscience, and/or fear of the law. To the extent that these consequences preserve civil order and cultivate ethical habits, there is some natural benefit to them. When you grasp that these incentives follow from Divine Providence, you bring your will into alignment with the will of the Lord, thereby uniting yourself with Him. This is not a “good boy” pat on the head for doing a chore, but rather the satisfaction of being in harmony with the One you love. That is Heaven. Conversely, when you do not align your will with that of the Lord, you move away from Him. Since the Lord is Divine Love and Wisdom, doing so moves you into the darkness of falsity and the cold comfort of self-love, which is Hell.

Way to contradict yourself. You don't do anything that doesn't have some basis in your values (go on, try it). This is just as true for God as it is for you. If you bring your will into alignment with "the Good", you don't do so in a vacuum; you have certain values that incline you to do so. Further, the satisfaction of being in harminy with it is itself doing something for a gain: the satisfaction.

If you want to quibble, you could argue that the satisfaction I describe is a “reward” for obedience rather than a “consequence” of it. I think there is a difference, but one in which reasonable people can disagree.

And if it is reasonable to take either side of this, why are you using it as support for your view?