Simple question for Christians.

[robvalue]

Thanks Rhythm, I think you've done a better job than me explaining things.

King: you talk of internal compulsion. Yes, exactly. That is from evolution, I expect. It's the part of us that wants to naturally cooperate and care for others. It's nothing magic. It explains why we care for others, because our bodies make it easier and more pleasant for us to do that.

As for guilt, sure, it's probably a way of getting people back to being honest and caring about their society. It's like an error message. "You did bad! Don't do it again. I'll make you feel bad again if you do!"

I'm no science expert, I've just tried my best to put it across. Science simply creates models. It models how members of our species tend towards generally caring about each other. That's as far as it goes.

CL:

When we talk about what we "ought" to do, we're talking now on an individual level. The golden rule is more of an observation of how cooperative behaviour works, it isn't the thing that creates morality itself. We all have different ideas about what people "ought" to do, but it doesn't mean they will do them. We can teach someone the basics of morality in abstract terms, but this is an add-on to how we naturally are, and may not even take at all.

I'm not too sure what else to say...

There is no alternative to subjective morality. Even if you find it unsatisfactory, it can be no other way. We have millions of theists who claim to have the one true objective morality, but they all have slightly different ideas about what it is. So which one do we use, exactly? If no one knows what this objective standard is, what use is it to any of us?

Attributing morality to an outside agency is either having things totally backwards, or an appeal to magic because the science doesn't sound convincing.

I can write loads of reasons why "God morality" does not work and makes no sense, if that would be helpful. For example, if God wanted us to all have the same morality, then he has hideously failed. We're all different, and some have no morality at all. So he either wants us to be subjective, or he's screwed it up. Either way, he has not created a standard that means anything.

If anyone wants to continue this, maybe we should make a new thread and let this one get back on topic