Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

Jump to new
Watch this video from the 1.20 mark to get a good description of objective morality



Sam Harris does a good job explaining it here also

 
bellenuit said:
Yes, that is OK. The OT is rife with commands to commit needlessly harmful acts. Read Leviticus for instance. And by excluding those, it is the theists that are cherry picking.



Yes, there is no compulsion on anyone to agree with the arguments presented by theists in defence of theism. However, flatly refuse is not the same thing. That implies (to me at least) refusing to even listen to the theists' arguments. That is a closed mind IMO and I certainly do not see Dawkins as having a closed mind.



Not at all. It is just those theists that insist their holy book is the word of God and unerring, while at the same time those holy books contain exhortations to commit morally repugnant acts. You cannot on the one hand claim that the books were written (or inspired) by God, are a moral blueprint, are unerring and represent an absolute unchanging morality, then insist large chunks of it are not relevant to society today. That is hypocrisy. Absolute morality, unchanging, but at the same time not applicable to current society simply do not go together. I am (and Dawkins is too AFAIK) quite willing to accept that many Christian theists do not regard much of the Bible (particularly OT) as a moral blue print for modern society, but then to retain credibility they need to stop using terms that the morality they get from their religion is absolute and unchanging. They cannot have it both ways.



We are talking about secular morality not the actions of some atheists. One can be of a religious persuasion and still subscribe to the tenets of secular morality and even find them superior to those prescribed by their own religion. As I said perviously, secular morality is really what modern society deems to be good and beneficial. There is no single source that codifies what secular morality is, apart from what encompasses many of the laws enacted in free secular states. We have seen that the golden rule pre-existed Christianity and that is the main driving force of what constitutes secular morality.



Yes, because those actions are not in accordance with secular morality and in a free society would be punishable.



Again your summary is based on a misunderstanding of secular morality.
Click to expand...
What is there to misunderstand? There is no such thing as secular morality!

The hypocrisy of Dawkins and anti theists of his ilk, is difficult to overlook!

You have somehow managed to overlook the hypocrisy of Dawkins' cherry picking of religious scripture, shortly followed by his condemnation of same, in that Q & A segment.

In fact it seems to me, that in the anti theistic ravings of Dawkins, you have found a religion to zealously defend!
 
Value Collector said:
Why does it matter how we got here?

The fact is we are here, and want to live enjoyable lives.

We can measure an actions rightness or wrongness based on its outcomes, we don’t need a Devine purpose.
Click to expand...
No! We cannot measure rightness or wrongness on outcomes alone!
We need to measure those outcomes against the intended goal!
Without purpose, their is no goal!
And that's why it does matter how we got here!
 
cynic said:
No! We cannot measure rightness or wrongness on outcomes alone!
We need to measure those outcomes against the intended goal!
Without purpose, their is no goal!
And that's why it does matter how we got here!
Click to expand...

The goal can be to maximize the wellbeing of humans and other thinking creatures.
 
grah33 said:
You're still in the same place. We're talking about compelling someone to do something against their own 'interior law' that is within themselves. If you reflect on this enough, I hope that you would realize that this isn't morally right, even if, according to you, that person's religion is false. Christian morality accepts this, since it's true and right, but not secular morality (or Islam or communism). And secular morality is really one type of secular morality, with the good bits in it. In an atheistic world you'd expect other forms of wicked morality to form, since morals don't exist.
Click to expand...

Secular morality doesn't depend on the person and what they think about their own behaviour. It's being as objective as possible on any given behaviour. Being objective in a sense of using reason and logic.

I mean, if you ask any psycho what they think of their own rampage they'll tell you it's good, for a good cause, the other people deserve it etc. etc. Hence, you don't ask people to judge their own behaviour.

Likewise, you don't depend on a religious text to interpret its followers morality because if it's written in the book it is moral. And you can't argue with that. Can't reason with it.

And no, Islam or Communism is not secular. Commies don't pray to a dead deity, but they do pray and worship their own brand of deities, and those who disagree, or not agree strongly enough, gets it.

Religion is just a brand. At least it is to politicians and other leaders. They pretend to pray, attend Church, Mosques, Temples... whereever and whatever that is. The people see that and assume, as we all do, that the guy must be good and honest, God-fearing and what not.

Anyway, religious people should seriously stick to their own belief and ignore other people. But they tend to think that their beliefs are Truth and Good, so why wouldn't anyone follow it.

Then they take it too far and pizzed off those around them, make their loved ones life miserable, then asked God why people around them don't like them so much.

Religion is a lot like Feng Shui. It starts from a somewhat sensible idea then got all magical and mythical. Ends up costing their believers time, money, lost opportunities and false sense of good fortune and happily ever after.
 
cynic said:
Given that all are doomed to perish, how's that working out for you?
Click to expand...

Are we?

It's not written so the future can be changed, no?

There are certain religious people who refuse to believe in Climate Change science because, ready? Because God promised Noah He won't flood the Earth again.

Yah. Let's put humanity on that promise.
 
luutzu said:
Are we?

It's not written so the future can be changed, no?

There are certain religious people who refuse to believe in Climate Change science because, ready? Because God promised Noah He won't flood the Earth again.

Yah. Let's put humanity on that promise.
Click to expand...
I am still patiently waiting to see if anyone succeeds in breaking one of the longest trends in history.
I heard a rumour, that Walt Disney, intended to take a shot at the immortality title, via cryogenic suspension, but I haven't seen him in a very long time.
 
cynic said:
I am still patiently waiting to see if anyone succeeds in breaking one of the longest trends in history.
I heard a rumour, that Walt Disney, intended to take a shot at the immortality title, via cryogenic suspension, but I haven't seen him in a very long time.
Click to expand...

Maybe you don't know the secret password.

That and just because a person is never seen doesn't mean they don't exist. Does it?
 
luutzu said:
Secular morality doesn't depend on the person and what they think about their own behavior.
Click to expand...
Yes, and is therefore not good. In this case, it is wrong to compel a person to go against their deeply held belief, regardless of what it is.
 
grah33 said:
Yes, and is therefore not good. In this case, it is wrong to compel a person to go against their deeply held belief, regardless of what it is.
Click to expand...

How is that not good?

To ask a criminal whether what they've done is good or bad... who does that? That's like asking a mother whether or not their child is the best in the world... heck yea! So you don't ask mothers what they think of their kid, you ask judges at beauty pageants. :D

If a person's deeply held belief harm other people, the court will probably compel them to cut it out. And they'd be more serious than Hillary Clinton telling Wall St to cut it out or else don't be with her.
 
bellenuit said:
Yes, that is OK. The OT is rife with commands to commit needlessly harmful acts. Read Leviticus for instance. And by excluding those, it is the theists that are cherry picking.



Yes, there is no compulsion on anyone to agree with the arguments presented by theists in defence of theism. However, flatly refuse is not the same thing. That implies (to me at least) refusing to even listen to the theists' arguments. That is a closed mind IMO and I certainly do not see Dawkins as having a closed mind.



Not at all. It is just those theists that insist their holy book is the word of God and unerring, while at the same time those holy books contain exhortations to commit morally repugnant acts. You cannot on the one hand claim that the books were written (or inspired) by God, are a moral blueprint, are unerring and represent an absolute unchanging morality, then insist large chunks of it are not relevant to society today. That is hypocrisy. Absolute morality, unchanging, but at the same time not applicable to current society simply do not go together. I am (and Dawkins is too AFAIK) quite willing to accept that many Christian theists do not regard much of the Bible (particularly OT) as a moral blue print for modern society, but then to retain credibility they need to stop using terms that the morality they get from their religion is absolute and unchanging. They cannot have it both ways.



We are talking about secular morality not the actions of some atheists. One can be of a religious persuasion and still subscribe to the tenets of secular morality and even find them superior to those prescribed by their own religion. As I said perviously, secular morality is really what modern society deems to be good and beneficial. There is no single source that codifies what secular morality is, apart from what encompasses many of the laws enacted in free secular states. We have seen that the golden rule pre-existed Christianity and that is the main driving force of what constitutes secular morality.



Yes, because those actions are not in accordance with secular morality and in a free society would be punishable.



Again your summary is based on a misunderstanding of secular morality.
Click to expand...



It seems like you're trying to find fault with the Christina faith again, as a way of strengthening your position. If there is a God and an objective morality, then the right religion should teach true morals, and Christianity demonstrates perfect morals, so this becomes a problem. And even then, Jesus was merely revealing what IS, rather than inventing something.

On a practical level, and this is Paul's view, a person should develop wisdom to know how they should act in everything (implies objective morality), so no codifying or anything like that. I believe many great names have come along in history with this wisdom: St Patrick, Mary Mackillop, the New Testament writers, St Frances, Augustine, Cardinal Newman (who came up with the related conscience argument for God's existence), Ambrose, and Catherine of Sienna. The list is bigger, spanning 2000 years of history. These were once ordinary people , who were perfected through suffering and trials. They fully became what they were meant to be, changing the world for the better. I believe some cured the sick, others changed lands for the better, while others knew people's secrets.

Regards the Old Testament, as I explained to VC, the brutality of the Judaic Law was designed for a society that lacked morality. This is all explained in the New Testament very well, which Richard Dawkins obviously knows nothing about, or he might, but pretends he doesn't. I hope you can see that.
“
the law is not meant for a righteous person, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers,
“
(Timothy)
 
Last edited:
grah33 said:
Regards the Old Testament, as I explained to VC, the brutality of the Judaic Law was designed for a society that lacked morality.
Click to expand...

Most of the laws of the OT were immoral in themselves and you cannot fight immorality with immorality. You can explain it away as much as you like because you cannot come to terms with that fact, but any rational person know that the OT was advocating immoral acts.
 
grah33 said:
It seems like you're trying to find fault with the Christina faith again, as a way of strengthening your position. If there is a God and an objective morality, then the right religion should teach true morals, and Christianity demonstrates perfect morals, so this becomes a problem. And even then, Jesus was merely revealing what IS, rather than inventing something.

On a practical level, and this is Paul's view, a person should develop wisdom to know how they should act in everything (implies objective morality), so no codifying or anything like that. I believe many great names have come along in history with this wisdom: St Patrick, Mary Mackillop, the New Testament writers, St Frances, Augustine, Cardinal Newman (who came up with the related conscience argument for God's existence), Ambrose, and Catherine of Sienna. The list is bigger, spanning 2000 years of history. These were once ordinary people , who were perfected through suffering and trials. They fully became what they were meant to be, changing the world for the better. I believe some cured the sick, others changed lands for the better, while others knew people's secrets.

Regards the Old Testament, as I explained to VC, the brutality of the Judaic Law was designed for a society that lacked morality. This is all explained in the New Testament very well, which Richard Dawkins obviously knows nothing about, or he might, but pretends he doesn't. I hope you can see that.
“
the law is not meant for a righteous person, but for the lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinful, for the unholy and irreverent, for those who kill their fathers and mothers, for murderers,
“
(Timothy)
Click to expand...

Are societies today more moral than they were since history began?

Are people, in general, more moral than they were since the time of Christ, Buddha etc.?

Yes. Yes.

Are people and societies today more religious or more secular?

The world today is a whole lot more civilised than just a century ago. Heck, just 50 years ago.

Chart such measures against Church or Temple attendance and you will see that religion don't make people more moral. It just make them more of a pain in the azz.
 
grah33 said:
Since morals are a law to stop people from harming other people
Click to expand...

Yes, so since it’s about people not harming people, why would we need to believe in a god?

We can figure out what is going to harm or is harming other people just by looking at the real world evidence.

You might say, with out a god telling us we have no reason to care about others, but that is BS,
 
cynic said:
Given that all are doomed to perish, how's that working out for you?
Click to expand...
The fact that I am doomed to perish doesn’t mean I don’t care about my wellbeing today.

Eg, if you buy a new car, and I hit it with a sledge hammer a few times, do you say “oh well, it was heading to the scrap yard in 15 years anyway” off course you don’t, because the fact that he vehicle has a limited life doesn’t mean you don’t care about it and want to enjoy it while it’s in good order.

That fact that we are all going to die doesn’t reduce the benefit of having a moral society.
 
Value Collector said:
The fact that I am doomed to perish doesn’t mean I don’t care about my wellbeing today.

Eg, if you buy a new car, and I hit it with a sledge hammer a few times, do you say “oh well, it was heading to the scrap yard in 15 years anyway” off course you don’t, because the fact that he vehicle has a limited life doesn’t mean you don’t care about it and want to enjoy it while it’s in good order.

That fact that we are all going to die doesn’t reduce the benefit of having a moral society.
Click to expand...
You still haven't quite caught onto the problem of "secular moral" definition though, have you?
How is maintaining the wellbeing of anything, whatsoever, morally correct in an accidental universe?
How can the wellbeing of any accident, be deemed to be correct?
 
Top