RE: Replacing Religious Morality
November 26, 2013 at 4:46 am
(This post was last modified: November 26, 2013 at 4:49 am by GodsRevolt.)
(November 23, 2013 at 9:58 am)genkaus Wrote:(November 23, 2013 at 1:32 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: No, Not irrelevant. You cannot shrug this idea off and still be talking God.
Yes I can. And I do.
If your reality was truly subject to my whims then your reality would be subjective.
Wrong.
(November 23, 2013 at 9:58 am)genkaus Wrote: However, the fact is, even if I put you in a box with the candy button, your reality is still not subject to my whims. I cannot change the nature of the box simply on a whim - I have to work in order to do so - and even then, I cannot change it any whimsical way, only in limited ones. That's what makes your reality in the box objective.
Missed the point.
(November 23, 2013 at 9:58 am)genkaus Wrote: You are the one who keeps insisting that god is capable of changing the nature of the box and the buttons on a whim.
I know
(November 23, 2013 at 9:58 am)genkaus Wrote: You mean the capacity for reason? And yes, brain function is more than chamocal reactions in the same way a computer program is more than electrical pulses.
Ones and zeroes
(November 23, 2013 at 1:32 am)GodsRevolt Wrote: If morality comes from a psychologist, we are all in freud a lot of trouble.
Why?
[/quote]
Moral psychology identifies and interprets morals and their development. It does not make morals. If Person A believed that murder was ok, psychology would say, "Person A believes it so."
(November 26, 2013 at 3:06 am)Vadakin Wrote: Since Jesus liked to talk in parables, let me try one of my own.
We are social creatures. We depend on each other to survive. Any action that threatens the survival and progression of the society is wrong. At a basic level, that's where right and wrong comes from. Our complex social structure and advanced intelligence has evolved that basic concept of morality but ultimately, morality is basic evolution and its origins are no different than the behaviour we see in other social creatures. Evolution gave us basic morality for our survival and then we built on it
It's ultimately a very simple idea. What benefits the individual should benefit the collective and what benefits the collective should benefit the individual.
What is the socially moral thing to do when a member of the collective is no longer useful (or never was), but still a drain on the collective?
". . . let the atheists themselves choose a god. They will find only one divinity who ever uttered their isolation; only one religion in which God seemed for an instant to be an atheist." -G. K. Chesterton
