Religion is a poor source of morality

[Edwardo Piet]

Yep, and someone is supposed to have put an end to it by conspiring to get people to nail him to a cross. It did fuck all he was clearly just deluded or a masochist.

[RoadRunner79]

I don't need to go by a list on some 'anti-christian' website.  These are things that are ACTUALLY in the Bible.  I'm assuming you've actually read it. 

Yahweh floods the world, and kills every animal, every man woman and child save for two of each 'kind', and eight people.  How is that out of context?  He killed all of them in the story.  Did he, or did he not? 

After David took a census, Yahweh gave him choices of how he would punish his people.  David refused to choose, so Yahweh decides to go with the plague, and kills 70,000 people and even then he's not even really satisfied.  Yahweh was a big fan of blood sacrifices.  Even in the new testament, Jesus is a blood sacrifice. 

Did he not take all the first borns of Egypt?  Did he not harden Pharaoh's heart?  These things are actually in the bible.  If you've read it, you found them there. 

Did he not turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for merely looking back?  Did he not have bears kill 42 youths because they made fun of one of his prophets?

I see a few inaccuracies, but for the most part this is correct.   The context which is left out however is why.  And I do think that the "why" question is very important in regards to morality. I also feel that in much of this, we are crossing between a discussion on immoral and unjust, as these are all related to judgement.  That might be an interesting topic for the philosophy folder.

 However if you are one who say's morality is subjective, then the argument is mute anyway.

You see mercy and patience because that's what you have been trained to see.  You choose to look past the fact that he killed 50,000 people who looked at the ark.  Does this sound like a just punishment to you?  If so then you might just be a psychopath too. 

I think you are making assumptions about me.  And what is the reason that you do not seem to see the mercy and patience?  That is in the scripture as well, and you seem to be hinting that you have read the scriptures.

Also I don't think you understand what poisoning the well is.

I went back, and I believe you are correct in that I was mis-using it.  What I was referring to was only giving part of the context, and distorting the story, in order for emotional appeal in the arguers favor.  This is not the poisoning the well fallacy although similar in some ways of intention.

And really the question is why is something immoral at all.  I have been told here a number of times that it is subjective, but it seems that we do not measure morality based on that standard!

[Cecelia]

What context explains the behavior of a deity who is said to have done these things?

Let's start with a simple one. The Flood. Everyone was apparently so irredeemable that Yahweh decides he's going to drown everybody. Not just all the people, but all the animals too. What context makes this okay? Keep in mind that there were babies and children that were drowned as well in this story. And Yahweh did not see fit to save any of them because the world had become 'so corrupt'. Surely Noah could have taken the children and the babies along with him, and raised them up to be good? Surely the babies weren't evil. What had they done that was evil? And what about the animals? Did they too deserve to die in the flood? What context makes this okay in any moral system?

How about David's Census? What makes it okay that Yahweh punishes the people of Israel for David taking a census? It's unclear in the first place WHO told him to take the census. By one biblical account it was Yahweh himself. By the other it was the Devil. But for the sake of argument let's say it was the devil. What makes it okay that 70,000 men were killed for David taking this census? Surely any crimes that the people took against Yahweh were to minimal, because if there were any, then they weren't listed in the bible. The same thing can be said about the flood as well, of course.

Yahweh hardened Pharaoh's heart. Exodus 7:3-4

But 'I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and though I multiply my signs and wonders in the land of Egypt, Pharaoh will not listen to you. Then I will lay my hand on Egypt and bring my hosts, my people the children of Israel, out of the land of Egypt by great acts of judgment.

Yahweh basically made sure that Pharaoh wouldn't listen to Moses. It seems obvious to me that Yahweh wanted to make sure that Pharaoh didn't do what Yahweh wanted him to do. Now Yahweh knows everything, so Yahweh either:

A. Knew Pharaoh wouldn't let Moses's people go anyway, but hardened his heart for good measure so that he could unleash his plagues.

Or

B. Knew Pharaoh WOULD let Moses's people go, and hardened his heart so that he wouldn't do what he wanted him to do.

So why would Yahweh harden his heart? If Pharaoh wouldn't let Moses's people go anyway, then there's no need to harden it. If Pharaoh would let Moses's people go, then why not just let him let them go? Did Yahweh want several plagues that badly? And why punish all the first borns of Egypt. Some of which were presumably very young, and had nothing to do with Pharaoh's treatment of the Israelites.

How about Lot's wife? She was told not to look back, but did. We're never really told why she looked back. But why does Yahweh threaten death for looking back? Does this not seem Psychotic? (Forget morality here. We're talking Psychopathy)

Then 42 youths were apparently taunting Elisha, and Yahweh sent two bears to maul them all. Even if they were ridiculing him, what could possibly make this worthy of death by bear? What context is missing that would make this perfectly acceptable to anyone?

Let's look at part of a definition for psychopath: People are seen as pawns to be used to forward the psychopath’s goals. Psychopaths rarely feel guilt regarding any of their behaviors, no matter how much they hurt others. psychopaths can often be seen by others as being charming and trustworthy

I think that describes Yahweh pretty well.

[robvalue]

If you're just going to say good morality is defined by what God does and is, then God is good, yes. But that's entirely circular. You're just saying God is like what he is like. That works for anything, not just God.

Can you please give an actual, real world non-trivial example of morality being objective? If morality is based on God's character which is in the bible, then we each have our own subjective interpretation of that character, then we each have our own subjective interpretation of objective morality. In other words, not objective at all. Everyone can claim their interpretation is "correct" of course. But at best they are all wrong except one person/small group of people because even people in the same denomination come up with different ideas.

Sure, we could go through all the horrible parts of the bible, but if your justification is going to be the above then God can do anything and you'd call it good, there's nothing to discuss. That is an amoral system.

What if god's actions are harmful to humans and not in our best interests? What if he is messing with us? How could you ever realize that, or discount it, if you don't stop to assess any of it for yourself? If in fact he is Satan, disguised as God, how could you tell the difference? Then Satan would be good, because Satan is the standard of good. Considering God killed around 2.5 million people in the bible and sends most people to hell, that makes Satan look very much like the good guy with just a kill count of 10.

However, let's give it a try. How do you justify God drowning everyone and everything on the planet because he was unhappy with the direction his creation had taken? He presumably could have used a more humane method even if for some reason killing everything was a sensible thing to do. Or just magically made everyone how he wanted them to be, with the morality he wanted them to have. That's essentially what he was doing by selecting the only people apparently fitting his requirements, so why not skip ahead and fix the whole problem without drowning anyone, and without killing all the animals who had nothing to do with it?

Of course, this story didn't actually happen at all, but it is still a good indication of the character of Yahweh. That character reflected the morality of the time. That's why it doesn't reflect the morality of our time, because it has since changed.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

---

I don't need to go by a list on some 'anti-christian' website.  These are things that are ACTUALLY in the Bible.  I'm assuming you've actually read it. 

Yahweh floods the world, and kills every animal, every man woman and child save for two of each 'kind', and eight people.  How is that out of context?  He killed all of them in the story.  Did he, or did he not? 

After David took a census, Yahweh gave him choices of how he would punish his people.  David refused to choose, so Yahweh decides to go with the plague, and kills 70,000 people and even then he's not even really satisfied.  Yahweh was a big fan of blood sacrifices.  Even in the new testament, Jesus is a blood sacrifice. 

Did he not take all the first borns of Egypt?  Did he not harden Pharaoh's heart?  These things are actually in the bible.  If you've read it, you found them there. 

Did he not turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for merely looking back?  Did he not have bears kill 42 youths because they made fun of one of his prophets?

I see a few inaccuracies, but for the most part this is correct.   The context which is left out however is why.  And I do think that the "why" question is very important in regards to morality. I also feel that in much of this, we are crossing between a discussion on immoral and unjust, as these are all related to judgement.  That might be an interesting topic for the philosophy folder.

 However if you are one who say's morality is subjective, then the argument is mute anyway.

You see mercy and patience because that's what you have been trained to see.  You choose to look past the fact that he killed 50,000 people who looked at the ark.  Does this sound like a just punishment to you?  If so then you might just be a psychopath too. 

I think you are making assumptions about me.  And what is the reason that you do not seem to see the mercy and patience?  That is in the scripture as well, and you seem to be hinting that you have read the scriptures.

Also I don't think you understand what poisoning the well is.

I went back, and I believe you are correct in that I was mis-using it.  What I was referring to was only giving part of the context, and distorting the story, in order for emotional appeal in the arguers favor.  This is not the poisoning the well fallacy although similar in some ways of intention.

---

And really the question is why is something immoral at all.  I have been told here a number of times that it is subjective, but it seems that we do not measure morality based on that standard!

When you read the Bible you will see that the basic rule is to believe and to obey without exception.  It doesn't matter one iota what you are asked to believe and to obey, only that you do it completely and without any lip.

Therefore, when the God character say to kill everything that's what the people were expected to do.  They might have had some reservations about doing stuff like that as some of the stories point out.  But when they didn't comply they were punished.  They were not allowed to think for themselves and to develop their own rules.  The system was   a 100 percent dictatorship.  

People in the 21st Century are expected to be more intelligent than the dummies were thousands of years ago.  So now we have volumes of laws covering every aspect of our behavior.  It's a ramp up from Moses' piddly 613 rules by a factor of maybe 100,000.  But we still have to contend with the crazy God character except now he's in the form of our governments.  If you break a rule the government will gladly bitch slap the crap out of you without a second thought.  We might think that we are free but we are in the same boat as people have always been in, believe and obey without exception or get the crap beaten out of you by the god character's angels (the police and military).  

If our god character (the national government) decides that it's a good idea to screw with some other god character on the other side of the world he will force you or your dumb kids to jump to it and go on a killing spree on the other side of the world even if you can't spell the name of the place you are being sent to in order to kill the local yokels or get your own guts spilled.  Is that something you really want to do?  Of course not.  But that's the human condition and that's one of the themes in the Bible stories.  So your own morality will almost always take a back seat to your orders.

[robvalue]

Yeah, it's just that this argument totally fails because if God makes morality then it's still not objective. It's subjective to God It is still a matter of opinion, just his opinion. And if you trust someone's opinion completely, never using your own thought, that is an amoral and dangerous system. Us atheists clearly do have morality, or else we'd all be running around murdering and raping, right? I know some theists like to pretend that this is what is happening, but it's not.

There is another option, that morality is based on God's nature, not opinion.   I believe that you are also confusing sin with morality.  I am differentiating here, in morality being always wrong for all people.  Whereas sin may be in regard to a specific people or individual in relation to God's command.

What is sin, and why should anyone care about it?

All I hear about it is that it offends god or something, so it's wrong. It's an excuse to say something is wrong without having to explain why it is of any actual consequence to something real.

The other thing, that I notice in this post, and I want to point out as directly as I can, because it is too often mis-understood (no matter how many times it is explained).  The argument of morality, has nothing to do with behavior or whether people (any group) are moral.  It has to do with the basis for morality and the source of objective morality. 

There can be no dependency for something objective. If it is based on something such as god's nature, which he can change however he wants presumably, it is not objective. It's subjective to whatever decisions he makes about what his nature is. It's just mirroring god, which does not reflect what the bible says at all. Instead, Yahweh mirrors the morality at that time. Now you would like Yahweh to mirror our morality. Either way, he's a mirror and totally surplus  to requirements. And not objective. Why should I care what his nature is, or what he wants? [As I later comment, I agree you can argue dependency on the very laws of the universe etc, but if you go that far, then nothing could ever be said to be objective.]

Throughout culture, geography, and time; man has a sense that there is an objective morality, outside of themselves.  There may be some disagreements, but then others are almost universally held to (if morality is objective, then it's truth is not dependent on recognition or knowledge of it)   We feel free to judge other cultures and times, as good or bad in regards to morals, and think that there is a moral standard which should be held to.  If morality is subjective, and can change from person to person, or group to group (as agreed upon), then it is incorrect to judge another person or group by a different standard (your own subjective morals).  Many betray themselves, because on one hand, they say that the standard for morality is subjective (changes and is based on individual opinion).  Then they desire to judge others and even God saying that there is another standard. 

Yes, it is wrong to declare any one person or society objectively more moral than another. It makes no sense. Only once you've agreed the goals of morality can you compare, and if both societies don't agree with the goals, you're begging the question by announcing one the victor. Being uncomfortable with this, as I said, isn't an argument against it.

So then if morality is subjective, many are incorrect in applying moral judgement against others (including often mis-understood arguments against God).  If morals are objective, then it is difficult for a naturalist to account for the cause or source of morals using only matter and the laws of physics.  Science cannot tell you what ought to be, and the laws of physics are inadequate as a cause, as they are a constant force.  It's not good or bad, better or worse, it just is, and has no choice of what is.  From the argument from morality, similarly to the argument from reason, requires a personal cause.

You can't be "incorrect" with a moral judgement, because it is a judgement. It depends on how you are judging it. It can only be incorrect if you've decided your goals and then mistakenly judge something for being something that it's not. Accounting for the source of morality is not difficult at all. It is actually extremely easy. It requires no personal cause or god. This occurrence and overlap of morality is mistaken for magic by those who don't understand it or want to study it properly. Also, you're admitting people don't actually agree, so it's not objective. Who has it right? You? If no one has it right, how can we use it as a standard? If we're just discussing it between ourselves, then that is again subjective.

Here is a brief explanation of how morality develops from evolution:

1) Evolution works through natural selection. Those that survive and breed the most will pass on their genes in general ahead of those who live less long and breed less.

2) When survival was a constant issue, humans/humanoid ancestors worked best in groups rather than alone. Cooperation provided protection, the ability to hunt more effectively, and so on. So anyone who was inclined to work well in a group tended to live longer and have more chance to breed. Those that were loners did less well.

3) Over time, the average amount of empathy (caring about those around you) increased, by selection of those working well in a group. Now we have a general trend for people to have empathy and work well as am extended group/society.

4) Evolution only deals with trends, so people tend to be this way, but anomalies still occur. This is completely expected under evolution, but totally screws up the idea that everyone has the same basic objective morality. They don't. Some people are psychopaths/sociopaths who can have no empathy. God missed them out?

For more professional, further reading please see this article that Rhythm kindly showed me a while back.

This is the scientific study of how morality came about. Just ignoring the facts and evidence as too complex and declaring "magic" is always premature (it is the argument from ignorance/incredulity) and never helpful. If the models aren't good enough, we improve them, not look to religious stories.

[Edwardo Piet]

What is sin, and why should anyone care about it?

Sin is that fucking painful bastard sharp thing I keep stepping on! Ugh I'm sick of it!


Oh wait, that's pin.

What's sin? Fuck knows. Is it one of those urban legends? Or is it a leprechaun? Or is buggering a leprechaun the sin? Meh, sin as a concept is so wishy washy if it's not clear whether buggering a leprechaun would be classed as 'sinful' or not.

[robvalue]

As a quick comment, I'd like to say thanks Roadrunner for the interesting debate You've remained civil through it, which is relatively rare on here. I'm not trying to be confrontational, so sorry if any of my words come over cold. I'm just very logical and matter of fact, and want to address the issues directly. I'll have to take a break after these big two messages as they've whacked me out

Roadrunner: The fact that people tend to generally share the same sense of morality is a direct result of evolution and is easily explainable. There's no need to resort to any outside influence.

I would challenge you to show that morality is a result of evolution, I don't think that you can do so,  easily or otherwise.  Not just to tell a story of evolution magic, but to show that it is the cause.  I admit, that we cannot test that morality is objective.  However I would maintain that the majority of people have an innate sense that morality is objective and unchanging.  The majority of philosophers believe in moral realism.  And while some such as Sam Harris admit to objective morality, I find that most who talk of subjective morals, still behave as if morals are objective.  

Covered in previous post. An "innate sense" is an appeal to emotion. It's not evidence. I am still waiting for examples of objective morality at work, what it means and how it's in any way useful.

Something being objective means you can somehow measure it using a certain method, and everyone would get the same results in any particular example, such as measuring mass or velocity. (Let's not cloud the issue with advanced science. Of course there will be user error to some degree as we're not infallible.) To say morality is objective, you need to give a method for measuring it. You also have to explain why that particular way of measuring it is meaningful or useful.

If this is true, then wouldn't logic/reason fall under the same restriction?  You cannot test logic or reason using the scientific method.  Science presupposes logic/reason.  Do you think that there is an objective logic; or is it based on the subject, and someone else's logic which opposes your own is equally valid? 

This is the roadrunner tactic. Yes, science and logic make some presuppositions, the minimum requires in order to be able to make any progress. We can either:

(1) Agree on some basic rules of logic/reason, as we appear to, for the sake of the argument or

(2) Discount everything either of us says because it might be a load of hogwash.

It's true, this might all be hogwash. But that is not a positive argument for anything. We lose nothing by making minimum assumptions, because if those are wrong and the very building blocks of logic make no sense, all we've done is talked a bit more drivel. So we agree to assume and move on, or we have nothing to discuss with anyone, ever and no progress can be made. Making assumptions which include the very conclusion you want to draw is circular logic/begging the question however. That is why we try to keep the assumptions down to as few as we can.

You seem to be uncomfortable with consequences. If there is only subjective morality, then no one can objectively say they are more moral than anyone else. Correct. That doesn't stop it being true. Simply announcing that there must be a "correct" subjective morality and calling that objective morality is entirely arbitrary and pointless.

Yes to an extent, I think it is a correct assessment to say I'm uncomfortable with moral anti-realism.  I don't think morality is just an opinion, but something real, something to discover, and something to aspire to.  But more so; I don't think that you and others behave as if is subjective.  Which should I believe.... what you say, or what you do?

How is morality something "real"? Where is it? What is it? I say it exists only as a value judgement made by intelligent beings, or else it is an observation of how people/society act as a whole. These are two very different things and shouldn't be confused. You can objectively study a society and get concrete data from their behavior, but you can't actually measure their value judgements in an objective way. Everyone has slightly different standards, so you can't compare one persons directly with another. You'd have to compare their value systems/morality goals. And until you've agreed these, you've nothing to rate them with and it's begging the question.

I behave very much like morality is subjective. I consider many things grossly immoral that society says is absolutely fine. I try to avoid these as much as possible, and I hope that in the future the rest of society will follow suit. My morality is very different, in some respects, to the norm. I don't claim I'm objectively right; I simply have different goals and values.

What we can do, and what we do do is to agree between us in a society on general goals for morality such as maximising life, health, happiness, opportunity, equality, freedom and so on while minimising death, harm, suffering, etc. Once we have agreed those things are important, a sensible framework can be built. It's then possible to compare one set of morals to another, to see which best serves the goals. What we consider important goals is something that evolves over time, as certain things seem more important and others less important.

You say that morality changes over time, and is a result of societal consensus.  So then a moral framework which is the antithesis of what you posted here would be equally valid then correct (it would be equally moral)?  You claimed that evolution is the source of morality (although un-supported).  So wouldn't then wouldn't morality be what best advances the species?

Yes. Morality means nothing until you have defined what "good" or "bad" mean. That is why they are subjective. Two completely different set of definitions are not objectively better or worse than each other. You must first assume what the goal is, which is begging the question. We can sit here and tell ISIS their morality is inferior because it involved killing people, and that's really bad. We say we're objectively right. But we're judging our system by our own goals, so of course it would seem "right" to us. They look at us and say we're not respecting Allah, we're no killing enough people for him. That's what is important. We're not doing it, so they think they are objectively better. But again, they use their own standard. So of course they will think they are right too. Who gets the final say in who is right? All we can do is try and agree between ourselves how we want to live. Just announcing one society is "better" than another, without first setting up the criteria, is meaningless.

If morality is based on god's nature, it's still subjective to god's nature. It's not objective. We can study the evolution of a particular society's morality, or we can study individuals to see how their own ideas compare to the general consensus. Objective morality is akin to saying, "Look, this is all too complicated. People sort of agree, and I want there to be a best way to behave. Therefor there is a magic standard." Even if there was one, no two people can agree what it is so it would be utterly pointless. What use to anyone is millions of theists all announcing their own interpretation of objective morality? If we're simply going to discuss them and find out what we think is right, then we're dealing with subjective morality again.

In your first sentence here I think you are equivocating the term "subjective".  I could equally say that the property of hardness is subject to an objects composition or any other number of physical laws, but it would be incorrect to say that it is not objective.  I also think that you are confusing epistemology (how we know what is moral) with ontology (what makes it moral) which is what I am discussing.

I don't know what you mean. You're saying god just happened to be a certain way, and that way just happens to be the best morality? How does that even make sense? Doesn't he choose how he is? Or did something else choose it for him? If you're saying god is as restricted by the laws of the universe as everything else, then there's a problem. He's no longer the controller of it, he's part of it. Can god not change his nature? And if not, why should I care at all what his nature is, if it was arbitrary and not chosen by him or anyone else in the first place? You're right to say things are ultimately dependent on the laws of the universe, and so on. That's a given. If you include that, nothing is objective ever, including the morality you are asking for. Is god subject to the same rules?

Plus, you really don't want morality based on god's nature if that God is Yahweh. I assume you've read the bible, the only apparent source we have. By today's civilised standards and goals, he is a psychopathic monster. To say otherwise is to discount the bible, at which point you're just completely making stuff up.

Well that is your subjective opinion, and I suspect is a result of prooftexting and lack of knowledge of scripture.   However you are again not basing your judgement on the subjective standard which you propose.

I'm reading the words in the bible. I've read plenty of them, in context. The whole of the OT displays a horrific character, for which Christians are constantly making excuses for his behavour. You assume again I don't know my stuff here. I could write a massive list, with references, as to the atrocities Yahweh causes, sanctions or devises. But if you simply say Yahweh is good and whatever he does is good, then it's nothing to do with morality, it's bowing down to a dictator.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Robvalue, why do you privilege empathy in your just-so story about natural selection. What about disgust, contempt, and fear. No doubt our capacity for those also evolved to confer some reproductive advantage. Using your logic I could rationalize moral sentiments I'm sure you would find disturbing. For example, disgust prompts us to avoid behaviors that led to injury and disease. Therefore it is moral to shun the sick and refrain from formication. Members of the tribe that are not inclined by normative desires to reproduce should be held in contempt. Or fear of outsiders protects the gene pool of the tribe therefore strangers, particularly those that appear different should be destroyed.

My point is not that any of the above examples are true but rather that contrary to common AF opinion the pressures of natural selection are at best neutral with respect to the origin of moral values.

[Edwardo Piet]

Robvalue[...] Using your logic I could rationalize moral sentiments I'm sure you would find disturbing. For example, disgust prompts us to avoid behaviors that led to injury and disease. Therefore it is moral to shun the sick and refrain from formication. Members of the tribe that are not inclined by normative desires to reproduce should be held in contempt[...]

He's not making an argument for social Darwinism.....