Why should one follow the moral law?

[Thales]

Let me ask you and the other Catholics here a serious question for consideration. How would you behave differently if you stopped believing in God? You seem to think that you would have to instantly turn into a sociopath. That you would eat. drink, and be merry and stop depriving yourself from all the stealing, raping, and murdering that you wish you were doing but are constrained from by your Catholicism. I think if you are honest with yourself you will realize that you will still love your children as much as you do now. That you will still go to work and take care of your family. Your life would be pretty much the same. Perhaps you would stop voting for Republicans, but you wouldn’t turn into a sociopath unless you were one before you became a Catholic.

I do have some reference for this question. My life before truely accepting the way of Catholocism, was very different. I was much more self-centered, concerned with success in my profession, over that of other people, family, and friends. I did not have a good sense of responsibility for the wrongs that I did or some of the pain I caused others. Neither a responsibility for work and other obligations that I did not feel like doing or that didn’t benefit me somehow. I also didn’t want children and probably would not have stuck with my wife (before we got married) because of some fights and arguments (I thank God for sticking with my wife because she has also made me a much better person). I know there were also some ideas I held, originating from experience, stuff on TV, or school that would have definately resulted in bad behavior. Fortunately, I didn’t have the opportunities to act on my flawed moral compass and bad ideas.

I don’t think everyone would be this way. Some people develope an acceptable level of morality without religion, but some like me don’t. Christianity, specifically Catholocism, has made me a much better person. I can’t really answer honestly what would happen if I stopped believing in God, because after being a Christian it’s fundamentaly changed my motivation from self to others, and I would probably carry a lot of morality over, just find something else to attribute it to. If I didn’t, who knows what I would become.

 

[reggieM]

That was an encouraging post, Thales – thanks. I agree with that also – Catholicism has helped me to improve in ways that nothing else could.

 

[tonyrey]

While the theists see eternal moral law as handed down by God to man who is in perpetual moral decline, I see moral progress and have hope for an even better future. It can be argued that lending our past moral practices the prestige of the eternal may be useful in preventing moral decline, but if we are to believe the theists it hasn’t, we have declined and continue to decline anyway.

Theists do not regard man as in perpetual moral decline. On the contrary they live in hope unlike pessimists, e.g. Arthur Koestler who believed there is a streak of insanity in the human species. Christians believe in the power of love to change the world.

Should we keep “defectives” from our churches? Should we keep slaves according to the Old Testament guidelines? Or can we just admit that we know more about morality than people did thousands of years ago?

Of course we do. Why assume Christians follow the prescriptions of Leviticus?! There was a man called Jesus…

 

[Leela]

T
Of course we do. Why assume Christians follow the prescriptions of Leviticus?! There was a man called Jesus…

Is eternally true that we should keep defectives away from our churches or did God change his mind? If so, will God change his mind again?

 

[Leela]

There are many more things that Catholics deprive themselves of than stealing, raping and murdering.

I’m amazed that you actually think of avoiding such behaviors as deprivation.

 

[tonyrey]

Is eternally true that we should keep defectives away from our churches or did God change his mind? If so, will God change his mind again?

I have seen many crippled, blind, deaf, deformed and mentally unbalanced people in church…

What about all the other points I made?!

 

[severntofall]

One conclusion I’ve drawn so far about this topic is that there looks to be a diconnect in the beliefs one holds about morals and translating them into behavior. The argument so far has become about whether it is better to have a divine source for moral code or a material source and if it’s possible to derive morality from the material world alone. Should the question be instead, what compells us to follow our moral laws, be them derived from a theism or atheism? Though I think origin and source is important for other reasons, since atheist can clearly have moral standards (maybe not all quite the same, but in general similar), what is it that influences us to act on our morals. Does the source of them figure in greatly as to how we practice?

Again, for me whether or not we have a divine source of morality is moot (IMO we don’t) as it makes no difference. It would still be up to us to figure out just what it is god expects from us (no consensus seems possible on this topic). Ultimately our morality is the result of emotions and instincts combined with our species exceptional intellect (which is essential the ability to recognize the relationship between cause and effect and the understanding of abstraction). As it turns out, the theist and non-theists comes to their moral conclusions via the same process; just that one recognozes this while the other does not. My personal thesis on the origins of human morality can be found on: agnosticsalvation.blogspot.com/

It’s an extremely long description of what I summarized earlier in this post.

 

[reggieM]

I’m amazed that you actually think of avoiding such behaviors as deprivation.

Do you think you scored some kind of points there or are you trying to convince me that you have something worthwhile to say?

 

[Thales]

Again, for me whether or not we have a divine source of morality is moot (IMO we don’t) as it makes no difference. It would still be up to us to figure out just what it is god expects from us (no consensus seems possible on this topic). Ultimately our morality is the result of emotions and instincts combined with our species exceptional intellect (which is essential the ability to recognize the relationship between cause and effect and the understanding of abstraction). As it turns out, the theist and non-theists comes to their moral conclusions via the same process; just that one recognozes this while the other does not. My personal thesis on the origins of human morality can be found on: agnosticsalvation.blogspot.com/

It’s an extremely long description of what I summarized earlier in this post.

Thanks for the link! It’s nice to get a complete view on someone’s thoughts than figuring it out through these short posts. I haven’t worked through it yet, but I wanted to give some initial reactions to your post. I think our sources of moral direction are more varied than emotions, instincts, and intellect. I agree we do create a personal and communal moral system from these things, but whether you agree with it or not, for thousands and thousands of years people have claimed a variety of transcendant sources for moral law. Roman gods, shamans, prophets, and the like have delivered moral ideas claimed to be sent down on high to them to deliver to thier people. We can’t say these haven’t influenced us even if we claim to be atheist. Most atheists I know were raised Christian or in some other religion. Even though they reject the formal aspects of their childhood religion I think they retain a lot of the moral aspects because something tells them they are indeed good. Honestly, this is not rehtorical, I would like to know if atheists posting here were raised by atheist parents who rejected all aspects of religion and devised their own system of morals.

“…whether or not we have a divine source of morality is moot”

That’s only true if all you care about is the moral code in itself. Where God and transcendance matter is in creating a moral standard that is constant and unchangable by man because of the authority of a powerful God. There are criticisms of this that have already been discussed, particulary by Leela, who with Pragmatism, rejects the idea and necessity of unchangable standards.

“It would still be up to us to figure out just what it is god expects from us”

I can understand if what you’re saying is how does each man know what religion to choose. My Christian answer to that is grace. God pulls man towards Himself. This is what makes Him a personal being and not just an impersonal force like gravity of energy. That’s all I want to say about that because arguements about grace and God being personal will lead us far off topic.

 

[reggieM]

My personal thesis on the origins of human morality can be found on: agnosticsalvation.blogspot.com/

It’s an extremely long description of what I summarized earlier in this post.

I skimmed through this. On a quick glance, it seems that you directed much of the argument against sola scriptura Christianity – so that wouldn’t apply with Catholicism. I’ll read it more carefully and reply later.

 

[tonyrey]

Again, for me whether or not we have a divine source of morality is moot (IMO we don’t) as it makes no difference. It would still be up to us to figure out just what it is god expects from us (no consensus seems possible on this topic). Ultimately our morality is the result of emotions and instincts combined with our species exceptional intellect (which is essential the ability to recognize the relationship between cause and effect and the understanding of abstraction). As it turns out, the theist and non-theists comes to their moral conclusions via the same process; just that one recognizes this while the other does not. My personal thesis on the origins of human morality can be found on: agnosticsalvation.blogspot.com/.

A solely physical account of morality is beset with the problem of freedom and responsibility. It also fails to explain Christian love and the principle of equality…

 

[Thales]

Consider Leviticus 21:16
The LORD said to Moses, 17 “Say to Aaron: 'For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God.22 He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; 23 yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy.”

This isn’t an example of moral law, and doesn’t necessarily reflect the moral compass of the people or diety. The religious practices and traditions of the Jews were set forth for a variety of reasons. Most of them were huge factors in the success of the Jewish people. When they forbid people to touch others with an issue of blood or deemed people unclean for various reasons, it was a primative means of establishing sanitaion in a time where science was not advanced enough to determine it. I don’t know all the finer points but I suspect there were similar reasons for preventing priests with certain defects from approaching the alter and making the food offerings.

On closer reading you will notice this is a command for priest, implying those who are deformed in the ways described could be priestjust not prefrom certain priestly duties. That a man could attain such a high position in the society and be deformed suggests to me, the restrictions noted are not a discrimination against deformed people.

 

[severntofall]

A solely physical account of morality is beset with the problem of freedom and responsibility.

In what manner?

It also fails to explain Christian love and the principle of equality…

No, not really. But even if it did fail (to our knowledge) it would be more an indication that we just didn’t have the necessary info to explain the phenomeni rather than proof that god makes us moral.

 

[tonyrey]

(A solely physical account of morality is beset with the problem of freedom and responsibility.)
In what manner?
(It also fails to explain Christian love and the principle of equality…)
No, not really. But even if it did fail (to our knowledge) it would be more an indication that we just didn’t have the necessary info to explain the phenomena rather than proof that god makes us moral.

That is an argument from ignorance which assumes all phenomena have a physical explanation. It implies that all your (and my, and everyone else’s) thoughts have a physical explanation. If so they could well depend on what we had for breakfast.

How would you give a physical explanation of the principle of equality?

 

[Dameedna]

Again, for me whether or not we have a divine source of morality is moot (IMO we don’t) as it makes no difference. It would still be up to us to figure out just what it is god expects from us (no consensus seems possible on this topic). Ultimately our morality is the result of emotions and instincts combined with our species exceptional intellect (which is essential the ability to recognize the relationship between cause and effect and the understanding of abstraction). As it turns out, the theist and non-theists comes to their moral conclusions via the same process; just that one recognozes this while the other does not. My personal thesis on the origins of human morality can be found on: agnosticsalvation.blogspot.com/

It’s an extremely long description of what I summarized earlier in this post.

Great post. Thank you

 

[Dameedna]

Thanks for the link! It’s nice to get a complete view on someone’s thoughts than figuring it out through these short posts. I haven’t worked through it yet, but I wanted to give some initial reactions to your post. I think our sources of moral direction are more varied than emotions, instincts, and intellect. I agree we do create a personal and communal moral system from these things, but whether you agree with it or not, for thousands and thousands of years people have claimed a variety of transcendant sources for moral law. Roman gods, shamans, prophets, and the like have delivered moral ideas claimed to be sent down on high to them to deliver to thier people. We can’t say these haven’t influenced us even if we claim to be atheist. Most atheists I know were raised Christian or in some other religion. Even though they reject the formal aspects of their childhood religion I think they retain a lot of the moral aspects because something tells them they are indeed good. Honestly, this is not rehtorical, I would like to know if atheists posting here were raised by atheist parents who rejected all aspects of religion and devised their own system of morals.

I think the point is, humans would have arrived at these conclusions, regardless of what prophet or culture claimed it came from God.

Religious people often make statements about our moral code being written in our hearts…" and is therefore from God". They presume morality cannot exist without God. This is quite an assumption and relies on a belief in God to support it.

Our capacity for moral and ethical behaviour comes from us.We didn’t start this way. You can say it was “all designed by a God” or not, it does not change the fact that most of civilization has been a concsious choice made by mankind through a progresssion and not through an act of “brilliant divine intervention”… Even if you want to claim God has a hand in it…it is a human choice to listen. Morality and ethics depends on our choices. It alway’s has, and it alway’s will.

Personally, I think we have a brutal human history where people slowly but surely made decisions and choices about how humans can and shall live, without slaughtering each other. These choices throughout every culture, have been placed “above” mankind…because we realized we were selfish. We had to have something “else” to make us behave.

For me…the athiest. I have my something else. It has nothing to do with a God which in my mind doesn’t actually exist. But I do have my “higher” power…and the reason we usually have it, is because it works for us. Religion is a product of our need to put something other than ourselves. IE…survival, life itself.

For both the athiest, and religious mind alike.

Cheers

 

[Thales]

I think the point is, humans would have arrived at these conclusions, regardless of what prophet or culture claimed it came from God.

This is a huge assumption. You can’t really say, “humans would have arrived at these conclusions” unless you know of an atheist society that has developed a moral system from their past experience, culture, intellect, and all those other good material sources. Because nearly every society in the past had a religion where transcendance figured into the creating and keeping of moral laws one can say modern atheist just pick and choose from them what parts they agree with and say, we’re right, and men would have came up with them without religion.

 

[severntofall]

That is an argument from ignorance which assumes all phenomena have a physical explanation. It implies that all your (and my, and everyone else’s) thoughts have a physical explanation. If so they could well depend on what we had for breakfast.

How would you give a physical explanation of the principle of equality?

It is an argument from baseless assertion to assume that all phenomena do not have a physical explanation. And yes, our brain functions are influenced by our diet; however I doubt that a single meal could produce a radical adjustment in one’s moral perspective.

Before I explain the origins of the principle of equality, could you define it please? If is nothing more that the assumption that all humans are equal or deserved to be treated as equal; then yes I can imagine a evolutionary route to such a concept. However, it has certainly been a concept that has been absent throughout the majority of our recorded history. Again, even if such a moral attitude were completely inexplicable based upon our current concepts of brain function and evolutionary mechanisms it would not be evidence that our morality came from an invisible man in the sky (or wherever it was that Jesus ascended (according to the bible it was the clouds)). Sometimes we just don’t know. For eons, man assumed lightening could only be explained by attributing it to an angry god, now we know that’s not the case. Our ignorance is not proof of god’s existence.

 

[severntofall]

I skimmed through this. On a quick glance, it seems that you directed much of the argument against sola scriptura Christianity – so that wouldn’t apply with Catholicism. I’ll read it more carefully and reply later.

That was just one article. The one that is more applicible is the one titled the Origins of Morality and Sayest the Chrisitian. Because of the format, they can be dificult to read. They’re very long, and I doubt any will ever take the time to read; however it is there than the truth of our morality can be found.

 

[Thales]

Religious people often make statements about our moral code being written in our hearts…" and is therefore from God". They presume morality cannot exist without God. This is quite an assumption and relies on a belief in God to support it.

Earlier in this thread this issue was disscussed. I don’t believe morality is written on our hearts and I also think people can act morally without believing in God.
I know this thread has a lot of pages now but some of these points were went over already. They are good points that need to be clear, so if you haven’t already, go back and check them out.

Our capacity for moral and ethical behaviour comes from us.We didn’t start this way. You can say it was “all designed by a God” or not, it does not change the fact that most of civilization has been a concsious choice made by mankind through a progresssion and not through an act of “brilliant divine intervention”… Even if you want to claim God has a hand in it…it is a human choice to listen. Morality and ethics depends on our choices. It alway’s has, and it alway’s will.

I hardly think civilization developed through conscious choices. Not saying it was all designed and planned out by God to happen the way it did, but civilization developed mostly out of necessity (need for stability under laws, food sources, community, etc.), and it seems whether or not God exists, survival of civilization depended on the people’s belief and practice of religion.

Personally, I think we have a brutal human history where people slowly but surely made decisions and choices about how humans can and shall live, without slaughtering each other. These choices throughout every culture, have been placed “above” mankind…because we realized we were selfish. We had to have something “else” to make us behave.

Yes, humanity is brutal, and we’ve gotten better… in some areas, but worse in others. For whatever the cause, slaughter and human brutality has hardly been in decline.
That’s precisly the point. We are selfish and need an outside source for guidlines and standards or we, selfish and brutal, make them up on our own.