Ultimate Questions: Can Objective Morality Exist Without God?
Can’t people who don’t believe in God be just as moral as those who do? Why say that the existence of human morality points to the existence of a “Higher Power”?
Track with the live debates and get more info at ultimatequestions.org
If God does not exist then objective moral principles and obligations do not exist. Morality would only be a matter of individual or cultural opinion. But this would mean that torturing babies for fun, rape, & child abuse are not really objectively wrong, and are only a matter of opinion. How likely is it, though, that these atrocities are not really objectively wrong? Can you live with this conclusion? Our deepest intuitions inform us that these actions are horribly wrong.
This is really a summary of a moral argument for God’s existence. Formally it looks like this:
Questions about faith? Bring your doubts
Why would I need faith?: Find some answers
- If God does not exist, objective moral principles & obligations do not exist
- Objective moral principles & obligations do exist
- Therefore, God exists
Consider premise 2. By objective we mean independent of opinion, just like 2 + 2 = 4 is objectively true even if everyone in the world disagreed. Despite people’s claims to being relativists, most people live as if they do believe in objective moral principles & obligations. It’s easy to say there are no objective moral principles & obligations, but it’s much more difficult to live as if there are none.
The judgments we make when ourselves and others are unjustly treated, like in the above atrocities, reveal what we really believe about morality, regardless of what we say we believe. We believe that these atrocities are moral abominations, not just infringements of mere social conventions or personal dislikes. If objective moral principles & obligations do not exist where does our sense of duty and obligation come from?
This leads us to premise 1. If there is no God it is difficult to see how there could be any objective foundation, any universal standard for good and evil. How do you get ethics from only different arrangements of space, time, matter and energy? A purely materialistic universe would be morally indifferent. We would have only individual or cultural opinion, but no objectively binding moral obligations!
Some have suggested that we can provide an objective foundation for morality without appealing to God. Morality has just evolved over the centuries, they suggest, because it promotes human flourishing and survival. Whatever promotes human flourishing and survival is good. Whatever doesn’t promote human flourishing and survival is bad. That is all we need for objectivity in morality, they claim.There is no need for God.
But if God does not exist, the critical assumption that human beings are objectively valuable is not available. Humans, like everything else in the universe, would be just accidental arrangements of atoms, and therefore, we could not justifiably declare that humans are objectively valuable. Furthermore why think the morality of the human species, above all other species, is objectively binding rather than just our opinion?
Moreover, if morality evolved because it produced survival benefits, we would not have objective moral principles & obligations. We would sense that objective moral obligations exist, but they really wouldn’t. Once we’ve figured out that our feeling of morality with regard to say, rape, is just a biological adaptation inculcated into us over millions of years, then we would have no reason to regard rape as objectively wrong anymore.
Since, we know that objective moral principles & obligations do exist, and since they cannot exist without God, it follows that God exists. (modus tollens)
If the God of classical theism existed, an objective foundation for morality would exist. God’s holy and good nature would be the objective standard. God’s nature would be expressed through divine commands which would flow necessarily from his moral nature. Thus we would have objective moral principles & obligations.
Your right Murch99, Jesus’ death was meant to change mankind. The change that has happened is that our nature that was trapped in rebellion against God has been remade to conform to His perfect character. Now there are three ways to talk about this transformation: 1) justification – this is the aspect that I referred to in my last post where Jesus took our sin on Himself and gave us the righteousness of God. This means that our sin has been dealt with completely. “There is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1) That is why we can say ‘we have been changed’; 2) sanctification – this aspect of the change refers to the ongoing process of our character being refined to conform to the character of Jesus. “I don’t mean to say that I have already achieved these things or that I have already reached perfection! But I keep working toward that day when I will finally be all that Christ Jesus saved me for and wants me to be.” (Philippians 3:12) Even though we have been set free from the condemnation of our rebellion against God there is a process to overcoming the rebellious nature that we have been born with. Christians live each day looking to Jesus to empower them to live a life that conforms to His character. The motivation of this is not out of fear of punishment (because the penalty has already been paid for) but out of gratitude and thankfulness for Christ’s sacrifice on our behalf. That is why we can say ‘we are being changed’; 3) glorification – this aspect refers to the hope that every Christian has that when they leave this life to be joined with God for all of eternity their rebellious nature will be dealt with completely and will no longer plague them. On that day God’s work of transformation will be finished and our lives will eternally conform to His character without fail. “We know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.” (1John 2:2) That is why we can say ‘we will be changed’. Justification, sanctification and glorification are all aspects of the transformation that happens to those who put their trust in Jesus. All three need to be in place in order to understand what happens to a follower of Jesus.
You ask a great question: why must God suffer in our place? Let me start by saying He did not have to. He chose to! There was nothing that compelled Him except His love for us. But the only way for our rebellion to be dealt with the penalty had to be paid. God could not arbitrarily dismiss our rebelliousness. That would have been contrary to His nature as a God who is just. So He chose to pay the penalty for our sin Himself. It is like if I steal a car and my dad chooses to turn himself in saying he committed the crime. If he is charged, convicted, sentenced and incarcerated for the appropriate amount of time and then comes to light that I was the one who stole the car there is no penalty that I have to face. It was already paid for by my dad and I can no longer be charged for that crime. God paid for the rebelliousness of the world and there is no need for anyone to be punished for their rebellion anymore. But if someone does not want that gift of God He does not force it on anyone. He offers it to all who accept it and trust Him. I said it before, pretty sweet deal!
You are also right that if God wanted to give humanity what we needed to follow His path He would have done so – and He has! First of all, He has given us Jesus to make that possible. Because of Jesus’ death we are set free from our own rebelliousness and can choose to follow His path. We have been changed! Not only that but Jesus is also an example for us to follow to know what it takes to live a life that is in the path of God. Second, He has given us His Spirit to be with us always and direct in following God’s path. Everyone who is a follower of Jesus has the Holy Spirit with them at all times working out that process of sanctification — the refining of our character to conform to reflect the character of Jesus. “Walk by the Spirit and you will no longer satisfy the lusts of sinful nature” (Galatians 5:16) As the followers of Jesus pay attention to what the Spirit is instructing they will not follow their own rebellious path but the path of God. Third, He has given us the Bible. I know that you have some less than flattering descriptions of the Bible but I would disagree with them. There is an amazing consistency within the Bible even though it is a collection of independent documents written by multiple authors, in three different languages, over a period of more than 1400 years. For that reason alone one is compelled to accept the divine intervention in the writing, compiling and preserving of this book. Beyond that I could go into the reliability of the manuscripts that we have access to and compare that to any other historical documents that we have from the time period. Again, I would point to God as the one who has accomplished that. I could also talk about the way that the Bible accurately describes the human condition as a proof of its divine perspective. But let’s allow God to speak for Himself about the nature of the Bible: “All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make us realize what is wrong in our lives. It straightens us out and teaches us to do what is right. It is God’s way of preparing us in every way, fully equipped for every good thing God wants us to do.” (2Timothy 3:16-17) Isn’t that exactly what you asked for Murch99 – “If the God of the bible had wanted to give man the knowledge he would need to choose to follow God’s path, he would have done so, somehow.”? You suggest that God’s plan has been limited to one small tribe in one area of the world and yet His message has spread throughout the world. It seems like His plan is working quite well.
Jamie:
“God is not slave to His own Law but He can only be who He is. Since His Law is based in His character if He were to act contrary to His Law He would be out of His character.”
Now again the skeptic must point out that this, as with other examples, sounds and feels like local subjective concepts applied globally and theoretically without justification. Law, defined properly as a binding custom or command and not in the scientific or mathematical sense, is in every way an admission of flaw… flaw in those entities whose will the law is meant to wrangle, flaw in those entities attempting to impose their will upon others by means of binding agreement or coercion, flaw in terms of the very concept itself which must not be self-evident… or else law would not be necessary. If God’s Law is merely a representation of God’s Will, and God cannot go against his will or his nature, by association man does as is his nature and to attempt to order his life or guide his actions otherwise is to ask him to do what God cannot… go against his nature.
“His perfect character does not allow for imperfection. It would be a logical impossibility.”
It would be under such a series of presuppositions. But if you cannot give evidence of perfection without God and you cannot define God without presupposing the concept of perfection, this is a prime example of circulus in probando.
“They were no longer perfect but were caught in rebellion against God and so could no longer be in God’s presence.”
To say Adam and Even were perfect is to admit that perfection has the capacity for imperfection, which by extension is to admit that God as a perfect being is “potentially” fallible. One can take the bible literally (at risk of destroying logic) and claim Adam’s imperfection began with the fruit… but then one must associated perfection with an utter lack of intelligence and wisdom.
“In that choice to rebel, Adam corrupted all of his offspring because we all inherit his nature of being a sinner or a rebel against God.”
This is to say we are not created by God, but rather Adam was created by God with the potential for flaw which he fully realized and we as products of Adam inherit that curse through no conscious fault of our own. For if we were each created by God he would have to create us imperfectly simply to remain consistent with his initial failed creation.
“Because Jesus took the punishment of our rebellion on Himself (which dealt effective with the requirements of our rebellion against God) He was then able to give us His perfect nature so that when God looks at us He no longer sees our rebelliousness but sees only the perfection of Jesus.”
I’m sure you tire of my logical nitpicking but this remains to me a complex web of contradiction and unnecessary interjection. Either Jesus’ death was meant to change mankind, or change God’s view of mankind. Assuming the latter… is God’s vision so easily clouded, or his perception so easily changed, that he needed a perfect example of humanity (stacking the deck so to speak) to live and die for him to see humanity as worth saving? Such a situation presents God as at best myopic and fickle, at worst judgmental and concerned with the satisfaction of criteria… none of which describes our view of perfection. If it’s the former, what changed in mankind except the introduction of an intercessor and intermediary whose example we should follow above all else… and have we done so? After all, despite many Christians’ (including prior poster Andrew) attempts to write off the Old Testament and claim there was a New Covenant that trumped all else, Jesus essentially preached adherence to the old ways. And why did God wait so long to intercede, if man was suffering the product of their own imperfect nature?
“Right from the moment of Adam and Eve’s rebellion God was promising that there would be a Saviour who would set people free. Anyone prior to Jesus needed to put their trust in those promises of God in order to be set free.”
Yet he waited thousands of years while man suffered in his imperfection and strayed from the obscure path?
“So Jesus’ death is not a loophole because it fully satisfied the righteous requirements of God. We are the beneficiaries of His willingness to suffer in our place and we can now live free of the captivity to our inherited nature of a rebel.”
Why must God suffer in our place? This is the question at the root of the loophole argument and once I don’t feel is adequately answered. Suffering, as with all things in the universe, is a creation of the Creator. For whom, for what, for which higher purpose or rule or law must God suffer on our behalf? If the law is his will, and his will is that we cannot be saved except by the death of a perfect man, why is his will such? Why does he wish this, or will it, and be unable to will any other alternative to address the imperfection of his creations? Why could God not love the man he created with a strong tendency towards rebellion equally as skeptics, as rebels, as agnostics just as easily as when we prostrate ourselves and humbly attempt to follow his chosen path? And if he does love us equally in sin as in piety, why was his Will to open the gates of heaven by killing a man, and not to simply give us the knowledge and understanding to see the wisdom of the correct path?
Most atheists and secularists believe wisdom and knowledge are the ultimate noble goal, and from these things comes the capacity to make better more informed decisions and to evaluate and expand our morality as we grow and learn. If the God of the bible had wanted to give man the knowledge he would need to choose to follow God’s path, he would have done so, somehow. Why? Because apparently he’s perfect. Instead we have, as I said before, a redacted book written by multiple conflicting authors colored by personal experiences and prejudices, reinterpreted and misinterpreted over the years… rewritten by various cults of personality… resulting in countless wars, death and suffering……. simply because God chose to reveal himself to one small tribe in one area of the globe, and then chose to send his son to die where only a few could see it. Were these the actions of anyone other than God we might call it folly.
“I know it probably is hard to swallow if you are missing the foundational belief that there is a God, but perhaps it helps explain Christian understanding of the centrality of Jesus as the only one who can set us free from our rebellious nature toward God.”
I certainly do feel said foundational belief is a necessary presupposition to much of these arguments, but I’m glad you agree to discuss them. Like anything, science or religion, I think what we hold as true must stand in the face of logical criticism and analysis.
Thanks for the compliment Murchad99. I too have enjoyed the discussion and appreciate the responses you have made.
I would like to focus my response on your final questions. God is not slave to His own Law but He can only be who He is. Since His Law is based in His character if He were to act contrary to His Law He would be out of His character. As a perfect being He cannot act other than who He is and so He will never be inconsistent with His Law. The Bible states, “God is Light. In Him is no darkness at all.” (1John 1:5) It is inconceivable for a blob of darkness to hang in the middle of a fully lit room. The nature of light does not allow that. It is the same with God: His perfect character does not allow for imperfection. It would be a logical impossibility.
That is why when Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden they were expelled from God’s presence. They were no longer perfect but were caught in rebellion against God and so could no longer be in God’s presence. In that choice to rebel, Adam corrupted all of his offspring because we all inherit his nature of being a sinner or a rebel against God. Not only do we inherit Adam’s rebellious nature but we also all engage in our own rebellion and so we are all separated from God because of our imperfection.
So here is the situation: God loves all of us whom He has created but because of our rebellious nature we cannot live out the purpose for which He has created us which is to be in relationship with Him; to love Him and be loved by Him. Somehow, in order for us to be able to live out the purpose for which God has created us, the penalty for our rebellion needs to be paid and our rebellious nature needs to be exchanged for a nature that is God honouring.
Enter Jesus, an entirely unique person because as the Son of God, He has the divine, perfect nature of God, but also as the Son of Man He represents humanity perfectly. Now I can’t explain to you how He was able to have both a fully human nature (not corrupted by sin, mind you) and a fully divine nature but that is one of the aspects of our salvation that we accept by faith. You see Jesus needed to be fully human so that He could die in our place. If He had anything but a human nature His death would have been for that creature not humanity. But He also needed to have a divine nature because our rebellion was/is against God and so in order to cancel the debt of guilt that we have against God, God needed to be the one who would sacrifice Himself.
So when Jesus died on the cross He was there representing all of humanity because He too was human. The Bible says “Everyone dies because all of us are related to Adam, the first man. But all who are related to Christ, the other man, will be given new life.” (1Corinthians 15:22) But He was also representing God as He hung on the cross so that He could take all of the punishment due to us for our rebellion against God upon Himself and offer us forgiveness. “God made Him [Jesus] who knew no sin to be sin on our behalf, so that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.” (2Corinthians 5:21) Because Jesus took the punishment of our rebellion on Himself (which dealt effective with the requirements of our rebellion against God) He was then able to give us His perfect nature so that when God looks at us He no longer sees our rebelliousness but sees only the perfection of Jesus.
So Jesus’ death is not a loophole because it fully satisfied the righteous requirements of God. We are the beneficiaries of His willingness to suffer in our place and we can now live free of the captivity to our inherited nature of a rebel. We have been given a new nature which is being refined in us and will reach perfection when we meet God our Father face to face in heaven. This is available to all of humanity but the problem is many still would prefer to live in their rebellious ways and choose not to choose to accept Jesus’ sacrifice for them. That is why the Bible says, “But to all who believed him and accepted him, he gave the right to become children of God. They are reborn! This is not a physical birth resulting from human passion or plan– this rebirth comes from God.” (John 1:12-13) Just as any gift that is ever given it only becomes useful to the receiver if they actually accept it. If they refuse to accept the gift they will never be able to be benefited by the gift.
You ask why didn’t God allow Jesus to die right from the get go if He knew that this was the only way that humanity could be set free from their rebellion. It is a good question but it misunderstands how people were able to be in relationship with God prior to Jesus’ death. Right from the moment of Adam and Eve’s rebellion God was promising that there would be a Saviour who would set people free. Anyone prior to Jesus needed to put their trust in those promises of God in order to be set free. All of the ritual that became a part of the worship of the people of Israel was symbolic of what Christ would one day do. God directed how they would worship and purify themselves so that they would have in their minds how one day God would send His promised Saviour (Messiah) who would fulfill all of the components of this Law. Jesus Himself said, “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.” (Matthew 5:17) So the rituals of the Passover, the ritual of the Day of Atonement, the ritual morning and evening sacrifice that happened in the Temple all pointed people to what Messiah would one day do for them. They could have confidence in the forgiveness of their sins because they knew that one day the Messiah would fulfill all the symbolism of the rituals and laws that they governed their life by. I could go into great detail of how every aspect of the Law of Moses, even the structure of the Temple, pointed to Jesus but we can save that for another post.
So the forgiveness of sins has always been an act of God, not the result of a person’s good deeds. It has always been accepted by faith, trusting that God was going to follow through on His promise. And it always involved a blood sacrifice because the penalty for our rebellion against God is eternal death, forever separated from His presence. God’s plan of salvation has never changed it has just adjusted from something that was anticipated to happen to the actual accomplishment of Jesus’ sacrifice. Adam and Eve’s shame of their sin was covered by the skins of a sacrificed animal and a trust that God’s words would one day come to fruition when He said to Satan, “And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall crush your head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.” (Genesis 3:15) Here He was pointing to Jesus as the seed of Eve who would be injured by Satan but through that bruising would defeat the grip that sin had on humanity. Abraham was considered righteous because he had faith that God would bring forgiveness of sins for the whole world through Abraham’s descendants; “the Scriptures looked forward to this time when God would accept the Gentiles, too, on the basis of their faith. God promised this good news to Abraham long ago when he said, ‘All nations will be blessed through you.’” (Galatians 3:8) The Law of Moses and all the writings of the Prophets all look forward to Jesus and what He would do on behalf of humanity; “Jesus quoted passages from the writings of Moses and all the prophets, explaining what all the Scriptures said about himself.” (Luke 24:27) We are similar in some ways to the people who lived prior to Jesus because they acted in faith trusting that God one day will send His Messiah and we look back in faith trusting that Jesus was indeed that Messiah.
Sorry this is so long but these are no small questions that you ask and I wanted to do them justice. Does that make sense? I know it probably is hard to swallow if you are missing the foundational belief that there is a God, but perhaps it helps explain Christian understanding of the centrality of Jesus as the only one who can set us free from our rebellious nature toward God.
“A Christian understanding of the world says that the flaws within the character of humanity and the flaws that we see in the world around us are the result of our rebellion against God. ”
That would assume the visible nature of the universe beyond our control and reach, with all it’s perceived random destruction waste and failed attempts at development, is somehow the result of man’s flaw as well. It also assumes that man is made to suffer an imperfect world without a choice simply because fellow man may have “rebelled”, even if unwittingly… just as man is made to suffer an imperfect nature from birth without a choice simply because God’s flawed creations, Adam and Eve, were easily tempted by God’s other flawed creation, Satan. Christianity dictates that I am God’s creation, but I was doomed to imperfection and suffering in a tainted universe long before I ever had the possibility of a rebellious thought.
This is eloquent retrospective reasoning to support a long list of interesting presuppositions. The human mind is exceedingly competent at crafting complex webs of logic to support pre-existing opinions. Would you agree how someone who didn’t enter the discussion in firm possession of these beliefs might see this as a prime example of such retrospective reasoning?
My original point was that we’ve only ever seen imperfect creations come from imperfect creators, flawed children from flawed parents, flawed art from flawed artists. Lacking any example of this in nature, I’m not seeing a logical basis to say imperfect man was created by perfect God.
“It is true that our finite minds cannot fully comprehend the vastness of God’s infinite character but that doesn’t mean that He is completely incomprehensible to us. There is much that we can know about Him and there is much that we can discover about Him. Our life in heaven will be a never ending discovery of the vastness of who He is and the beauty of His love for us. ”
There are many Christians who hold that all will be revealed to man once he ascends to heaven, yet you paint a picture of man’s afterlife as a continual journey of growth and discovery. That heaven means so many different things to so many different people comes back again to my skepticism of all things “objective” with regards to religion, morality, creation and eternity.
“I have to disagree with your assertion that the beauty of creation is subjective. I would challenge you to find a person that cannot find something that they find beautiful in creation. It may be that we each find different things beautiful but we all do find something that is beautiful in what God has made.”
20 different people could each find a different flavor of ice cream they find good to eat… this does not mean ice cream is objectively good, and certainly does not mean a particular flavor is objectively good. One could argue that sugar is objectively good-tasting, as we know the human tongue responds well to sweetness, but there’s always the possibility of someone who simply does not like sugar. Then there’s degree of sweetness. This is all fundamentally subjective… any angle we take in attempting to prove objectivity is just applying our subjective perspective objectively, or worse yet applying probability in place of necessity.
“I think you are limiting the idea of a perfect state when you say that a perfect being would have no need to have activity or relationship; that somehow God’s desire to create and to be in relationship shows that He is not perfect. Is your idea of a perfect being one that floats contentedly in just its own self, never interacting with anything or anyone, never being involved in activity? I don’t see that as perfect at all. Perfection is something to be lived out and acted upon. Creation is an extension of God’s perfect character. His love of relationship shows His perfection.”
And a being who has the utmost love for relationship would be negatively affected or logically diminished with the absence of such. As for my definition of a perfect being….. it will likely not surprise you that I have none. Why? Because I believe perfection is a subjective concept, meaning different things to different people, and it does not exist in any capacity at all, ever, in our lives or the world/universe in which we live. We invented the concept as an ideal superlative extension of our visible subjective comparatives. But superlatives are only possible in a closed set, and only from a particular subjective perspective. We see a stumpy tree, a taller more handsome tree, and a third towering glorious fruit-bearing climbable shade-giving tree… and as humans grounded in finity we conclude that as each tree is progressively better and more pleasing to us there must be an ultimate tree at the end of this progression. But there is no perfect tree imaginable.. and if there were one for one person, it would not meet the ideal and probably indefinable criteria for perfection held by another person.
As with morality.
“You say that having the scenario of the multiple doors is no example of free-will. And yet time and again we see the reality of people given a very similar situation and they choose the path of destruction.”
I’ve said that if man were given a series of doors, the scenario was presented in a very contradictory and unclear manner rife with unnecessary temptation and obfuscation. If my scenario was such, I would be to blame as I was the creator of both the house and the son I unleash the test upon apparently out of love most incomprehensible. I hope you can appreciate how applicable the analogy is, all in all.
So assuming God created us because he loved us before we existed (logic cannot approach this statement), assuming he placed us far from the “mountain” so to speak, assuming he loved us so much he gave us the capacity for rebellion from the path towards his perfection and we inherited the misery and suffering and flaws that results from that rebellion even before we have the opportunity to rebel… this begs the question:
Could God have made man more perfect while still possessing free will?
Could God have made man with a greater understanding of the universe, more temperance and patience and less baser instincts and urges, so that man could still have free will but would always choose the right path and thus avoid the suffering to which we are currently all condemned? After all, God has free will so that alone cannot be a flaw or the source of sin. How can our failures as his creation not ultimately lead back to his failures as a creator? Could God have made Objective Morality (again putting aside all the logical evidence that such a thing does not and never has existed) more self-evident so that we wouldn’t need a contradictory handbook, written and redacted by man and full of the self-absorbed and colored perspectives under which those men labored?
This likely goes beyond the scope of our conversation (which already extends a bit past objective morality from time to time) but I’d like to ask you a series of questions since you’ve been a very rational and civil partner in debate:
If God is the creator of all things, all powerful, and he has free will to do what he in his perfection deems to be a perfect act…. why does it seem he a slave to his own Law? Why must he work within the processes and procedures he created for man’s salvation? Why did he need to send his divine son to die and thus open the closed gates of heaven, to once again give man a means to ascend and be saved? Why did man as a sinner need to avoid God’s judgment by following Jesus’ path? Is God unable to control himself and his judgment… and thus needed to create a loophole in the Law in order to prevent his creation from suffering eternally? If God’s creation (man) is so flawed that he was unable to uphold the first covenant, and God being perfect knew this first agreement was doomed to failure, why did God make it knowing the system was flawed and he would need to intervene later on in the form of Jesus’ suffering and death? If God always intended to have his son die and this was to be the only way we would need to salvation, why not lead with this trump card… why let sin fester to the point where intercession was needed?
I can’t promise I’ll be swayed or even satisfied by the answers you give, but what I read from Christian apologetics is generally mind-boggling and I’d like to hear how you view the topic.
Happy Thanksgiving all.
A Christian understanding of the world says that the flaws within the character of humanity and the flaws that we see in the world around us are the result of our rebellion against God. There are consequences for our rebellion. Our role was as stewards of the resources that God created in this world. But instead of caring for nature humanity has mistreated the world around us. The promise though is that all will be set right one day and in a perfect setting we will be able to fulfill our role as God intended. So the flaws are not a result of God’s imperfect creative act but of our irresponsible interaction due to our rebellion against God.
It is true that our finite minds cannot fully comprehend the vastness of God’s infinite character but that doesn’t mean that He is completely incomprehensible to us. There is much that we can know about Him and there is much that we can discover about Him. Our life in heaven will be a never ending discovery of the vastness of who He is and the beauty of His love for us. That’s what makes our eternal existence such an exciting prospect. It has been compared to appreciating the beauty of a mountain: from a great distance there is much to enjoy about the beauty of a mountain, and as you draw closer and closer to that mountain more detail comes into focus opening the senses to new discoveries of beauty. The closer we get to God the more detail we understand and appreciate.
I have to disagree with your assertion that the beauty of creation is subjective. I would challenge you to find a person that cannot find something that they find beautiful in creation. It may be that we each find different things beautiful but we all do find something that is beautiful in what God has made. I think it can be fairly stated the universe around us is full of beauty even if we all have different favorites.
I think you are limiting the idea of a perfect state when you say that a perfect being would have no need to have activity or relationship; that somehow God’s desire to create and to be in relationship shows that He is not perfect. Is your idea of a perfect being one that floats contentedly in just its own self, never interacting with anything or anyone, never being involved in activity? I don’t see that as perfect at all. Perfection is something to be lived out and acted upon. Creation is an extension of God’s perfect character. His love of relationship shows His perfection.
You say that having the scenario of the multiple doors is no example of free-will. And yet time and again we see the reality of people given a very similar situation and they choose the path of destruction. Everybody knows that there is a great risk of health problems that comes with smoking, and yet people still choose to either continue or start smoking. There are so many examples in this world of clear health and wellness choices that people are given and yet time and again there are those who choose poorly. God has shown us the path to the summit. He has given us guidance to help us get there. There is a written guide book that we can have concrete directions of what to choose and what to avoid. Not only that, but He has actually come as one of us, in the person of Jesus Christ, to show us the way and to pay for the consequences of our poor choices. He offers that payment as a free gift and then adds to it His presence with us to walk the path and show us how to get to the summit. Will you choose to follow Him or will you ignore all the help that He is giving you and try to find your own path to the summit? Don’t you see? He has given you everything you are asking for and still you claim that He doesn’t exist.
Jamie:
“Just as children are in need of guidance because of their flaws so we as God’s creation are in need of guidance because we have chosen to rebel against God.”
The point I was trying to make previously was that children are flawed because they come from flawed parents. No one chooses to create a child that is flawed. Life is flawed. The universe, while eloquent and often beautiful from a human perspective, is flawed in that it does not meet our expectations of perfection… barren, wasteful and littered with various stages of destruction and aborted/failed development. For anyone who does not by virtue of their faith presuppose the existence of God, who by definition must be perfect, there can be no logical reasoning for the existence of vast imperfection as the direct product of perfection.
“I disagree with your assertion that there is no logical reason for God to have created humanity. The reasons stem from the character of God: 1) God is creative and loves to create beauty and diversity. You look at the universe around us and the vast diversity and beauty on the macro and micro scale is astonishing; 2) God is relational and loves to love and be loved.”
1) We are often told we cannot truly comprehend God in all his glory, as we in our flawed state cannot truly comprehend perfection. As such, making claims as to the character of God is more akin to wish and hope.
2) Beauty by it’s very definition is perception-based and therefore subjective… not objective.
3) God created because he desired to do so. God desires to create, to love, to be loved. God wanted/wants these things. Don’t you think a perfect being should want for nothing? These are things we understand… wants, needs, urges… emotions. Logically, it’s far more likely we are attributing these things to God to make him easier for us to love than it is for our chemical emotions to be crappy facsimiles of the incomprehensible pure and perfect love of a perfect being. Just as there had to be a Satan, just as there had to be temptation to evil, any being that can love can also hate… any being that can feel joy can feel anger. Any relational being that can love to be loved has ego, and can experience loneliness. Attempting to apply the one and not the other in an attempt to prove perfection is really just selective and excusatory in my opinion.
Not unlike a very advance, expansive and evolving computer (hardware and software), man does indeed have programming. Instincts, genetic imperatives, urges and desires and fears built in even at the most basic level. It took a great deal of experience, interaction, evolution and introspection for us to reach the point where we overcame this programming and in many cases overwrote it. But what does it say about a creator that he would give a creation free will to choose to overcome and rewrite its programming… but then guide and dictate what is good or bad and what should or should be done?
Your view of morality and the meaning of life seems to be that man was put at the base of a hill and told to stay on the path to reach the summit. Just because he had the option to jump off a cliff doesn’t mean he should feel a sense of accomplishment at having followed the path he was told to follow…. nor is it a particularly practical example of free-will. If I create a child, and when it’s old enough to understand I show it a gun and say “there’s three doors… I want you to walk through the middle one. If you don’t I won’t beat you, but chances are you’ll starve to death in the dark, all alone”… the choice I gave him was no choice at all. And if I made it even more obscure, gave him a hundred rooms with three hundred doors full of puzzles, and instead of telling him the rules in person I left him a note that was written in someone else’s handwriting claiming they had spoken with me and this was what I wanted…. would I ever expect my son to make it out alive? More importantly, what kind of father would I be to arbitrarily decide which of these doors were good and which were bad, and then subject him to such a horrible test? For what, so he could meet me at the end of the maze and truly appreciate the prize he had earned? By anyone’s standards I would be a monster… unless, obviously, I was perfect.
The analogies that I used are inadequate as you point out Murch99 but that doesn’t take away from the similarities that exist. God’s guidance is motivated out of love for us, just as a parent’s guidance for their child is also motivated out of love. Just as children are in need of guidance because of their flaws so we as God’s creation are in need of guidance because we have chosen to rebel against God. A key falling apart of the analogy is that parents are flawed where God is perfect in all aspects. His guidance is never marred by insecurities or dysfunction. The point I was addressing with the analogy is that God’s direction is not the result of a cruel coercion but is the result of our choosing paths that lead to our own destruction. God in His love and mercy points us to the path that is the best.
I disagree with your assertion that there is no logical reason for God to have created humanity. The reasons stem from the character of God: 1) God is creative and loves to create beauty and diversity. You look at the universe around us and the vast diversity and beauty on the macro and micro scale is astonishing; 2) God is relational and loves to love and be loved. The unique description of humanity that is presented in the Bible as the “image bearers of God” put us in a place where we are able to relate to God in a more intimate way than any other creature. The only way that the relationship between God and humanity would truly be based on love is if humanity could have the choice not to love God. You can program a computer to say all kinds of loving things to you but it is not truly love because it cannot choose not to say those things. It is just responding to its programming. Love cannot be programmed and neither can love be forced. All kinds of dictators have tried to force people to love them but it cannot be done. You can force people to say and act in ways that resemble love but the only way that love is real is if it is chosen.
So God created humanity because He is a master creator and loves to create beautiful things, and also He created humanity so that He could love and be loved. This is not a flaw in His character or proof of some inadequacy that He needed to fill. He is not dependent on our love or somehow needs our love. He just loves to be loved. The reason He created humanity to have the freedom to choose to love Him is because He wanted true love not a programmed or forced love.
You accuse me with misrepresenting Vulcan’s point by saying that he is being morally relativistic. That is not what I was saying so let me try again: when Vulcan stated “It requires a special kind of malice to create beings with so called free-will combined with immortal souls, and then give them the choice” I understood him to intimate that paths other than the one that God approved of were not inherently wrong and destructive but weren’t what God wanted and so our pursuit of those paths was only because God didn’t want us to go that way. My point was that those paths are destructive not because a person will incur the wrath of God but because they lead down roads that will destroy us emotionally, physically, mentally and spiritually. So it is love and not malice that motivates God’s creation and direction for humanity.
Jamie:
“Isn’t that what we do with our children? We direct them towards those choices that our experience tells us will be best for them. ….. If were to build a boat, it’s purpose clear from its design, as long as it fulfilled its purpose all would go well with that boat. But what if that boat decided that it didn’t agree with me the builder and instead chose to live like a plane?”
We guide our children because they, like us, are flawed. We want to be proud of them and seek to protect them from our mistakes. We see in them a legacy to extend beyond our own glaring finity and mortality. Almost none of this does or should apply to an eternal, omnipotent and omniscient Creator. And therein lay one of the biggest problems with the inconsistent presentation of God throughout the bible as a proud, sometimes angry, sometimes disappointed and other times hopeful father… these are the motivations and emotions of a flawed being and they are routinely projected upon the God entity. It’s no coincidence these characterizations seem “designed” to bring us comfort, illogical as they are.
Why does a man build a boat? It’s not because he has everlasting love for the boat, and it’s not because it’s part of some unknowable plan (both reasons given to explain why God created man, both embarrassingly lacking). He builds it because he is a limited creature who can neither walk on, breathe under or swim in water for extended periods of time… and he wants or needs to cross that water.
The topic has been much more thoroughly explored by science fiction writers, by means of robotics and the inception of evolving artificial intelligence. Our desire for automatons to remain in their function stems from utility (we need them to do something for us) and security (we’re terrified of thinking machines deciding to replace us). Yet a constant theme is man’s innate hope that the flawed creations we construct can potentially evolve into something different, greater and more complex than what we imagined. The God of your description cannot share these hopes.
There has not been, nor can there ever be, an adequate logical explanation as to why a perfect being would create *imperfect* beings with the intention that they try and fail to emulate Him… and the stipulation that attempting to evolve and figure things out for themselves would lead to the misery of a “misdirected life”. There’s no good answer to the question “why would a perfect being create a train, designed to run along a general set of tracks, but equip it with a fully-functioning hypersensitive steering wheel?” How can there be an answer when one can’t even adequately explain why the perfect being created either the train or the tracks to begin with?
“The difference between our two scenarios is that yours presupposes that any path we choose is just as good as another. ”
So we’re back to portraying those who believe morality is inherently subjective as being anarchistic hedonistic coin-flipping Harvey Dents? Even a moral relativist will acknowledge that there are fundamental moral tendencies inherent to our genetic code, refined and expanded upon/added to by our capacity for reason and analysis. But even the most universal subjective morality is ultimately subject to evolution, just as man is. What the moral relativist will insist is that the majority of moral values are learned as a child socially, culturally or via direct education. It would follow, and has been proven, that humans raised (or indoctrinated) with a different moral foundation would have moral principles shifted or adjusted, even in many cases when in direct contradiction to the fundamental subjective bare-bones moral concepts we consider otherwise universal to mankind. The fact that an insulated community or (more expansively) a hypothetical insulated generation could develop completely unaware of and unwilling to conform to many of the morals we consider universal is evidence against objectivity. One could argue if these truths were objectively defined they would be logically self-evident and would not require A) revelation B) specific rules and commandments and C) the constant and repetitive study and memorization of religious texts / God’s laws.
Vulcan, I would like to reframe your statement that God makes to us slightly. I think it puts the situation in a different light completely. Yes God has made us with a free-will combined with an immortal soul and gives us a choice: “Choose what is best for you and you will experience the fulfillment of being in relationship with Me. Turn your back on what is best and try to find your own sense of fulfillment and you have to endure the pain of a misdirected life.” Isn’t that what we do with our children? We direct them towards those choices that our experience tells us will be best for them. When they choose otherwise they miss the best and are faced with the consequences of their choices.
If were to build a boat, it’s purpose clear from its design, as long as it fulfilled its purpose all would go well with that boat. But what if that boat decided that it didn’t agree with me the builder and instead chose to live like a plane? That boat is in for an existence of disappointment, pain and ultimately destruction. Now if the Bible is correct and God has created us to live in relationship with Him, what will happen if we choose to live otherwise? What is we choose to live as if God does not exist, that our existence is the result of chance, and that we have no moral authority outside of what we determine? What will be the consequences of choosing another purpose than what God has created us for? God tells us that if we make that choice He will ultimately acquiesce to our desire and allow us to live out our immortal existence separate from Him. That place is called Hell and is described as a place of eternal torment because God is completely absent from those who have chosen that path.
The difference between our two scenarios is that yours presupposes that any path we choose is just as good as another. Mine presupposes that there is a right way to live and that other ways are paths toward destruction. No longer is God coercive as you suggest but He is showing His love and care for us by showing us what is the best path for us. In fact, He goes so far to show us His love for us that He gives Himself to pay for the penalties of our rebellion against Him. Paul wrote in the Bible that, “God showed his great love for us by sending Christ to die for us while we were still trapped in our rebellion against Him.” (Romans 5:8) He didn’t wait for us to make the first move because He knew we never would. He is the one who has initiated this reconciliation and offers it to all people as a free gift. The gift is all of our rebellion forgiven, a new life that is no longer trapped in that state of rebellion, a life lived here on Earth that is a fulfillment of our created purpose and an eternity spent is relationship with Him in perfect peace and joy. Sounds like a pretty sweet deal to me! What do you think?
It is my opinion that if the Christian God actually does exist, he is immoral himself. It requires a special kind of malice to create beings with so called free-will combined with immortal souls, and then give them the choice: “Choose what I want you to and be rewarded, or choose what you want and suffer eternally”. We have a word for that: coercion. If you truly have free-will then it should leave no room for determinism. If God really determines your path, then you do not really have free-will, and therefore you are not ultimately responsible for your choices. I don’t understand how a person can continue being a Christian after asking him/herself these questions. My guess is that the brainwashing you underwent since childhood has given you a disproportionate fear of Hell.
Murchad99
The fundamental difference between you and I is that you do not acknowledge that there is a belief in God. Your definition of Christianity escapes me as many of the scriptures I have quoted is the definition of Christian however your belief is that Germans are Christians. Your belief is the definition of Christianity is someone that believes in God. Christianity is someone who asks Christ to forgive them of their sins and asks Christ to enter into there hearts. It is not for me to say who and who is not a Christian. When someone who accepts Christ as there savior their lives are evident as they will live a Holy Spirit filled life. The Holy Spirit is our guide,helper, comforter, and the person who lives the Holy Spirit life there is evidence through there kindness, patience, serving, and loving others as the love themselves. The statement that Hitler considered himself to be a Christian may very well be true however when you look at his life it is a laughable to consider that he believed himself to be a Christian. When he murdered God’s chosen people if he were truly a Christian he would have not slaughtered the Jewish people. The topic does not sting as I mention it so prove your definition of Christianity is not as the Bible states it to be.
Your choosing to have a discussion based on pure logic or reason without the view of what God’s word says. The reason for the 80 lines of citation as you call it was to show the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament. The passage you refer to in Exodus is not longer valid and that is stated in the scriptures that i quoted. I understand the passage can be interpreted when it is sating to serve the masters as being sexual in nature however it does not specifically state this as the Old Covenant laws you are referring to were very specific. The reason the scripture was quoted is to give merit to my argument that the Old Coven at laws are null and void which is the reasoning why I chose to include the passages.
Their is a major difference between between Mohammad, John Smith and Jesus. Mohammad nor John Smith were not nailed onto a cross as a sacrifice for God so we could have salvation. They wrote what their beliefs were and after they died others began to follow there religion. Christ was sacrificed for our sins and was buried and rose again three days later. He remained on earth for forty days and many seen him he ascended to the heavens Before he ascended he told his disciples that he would send a helper the Holy Spirit which occurred. The difference is that Mohammad and John Smith were human beings who died.
In the Old Testament in Exodus which the laws that you are referring to are no longer valid they are null and void. The laws you mentioned is the Old Covenant when Christ was crucified the inner temple of the Holy of Holy’s where God existed curtain was torn in two. The inner temple was the place where God existed and if any one entered this area they were struck down with the wrath of God. In the Old Testament times evidence of God existed for all to see as if someone entered God’s dwelling place he would be killed. The Old Covenant laws that you are quoting as a part of Christianity are no longer valid.
The foundation for my beliefs in Christianity are not what you believe they to be. The majority of the books in the Old Testament were written to show the existence of evil and to provide historic proof that the prophecy of what was written in many of the books of the Bible to occur in the future. The reasoning for this is when people as yourself try to prove that God does not exist the evidence will show that he does. You can choose to call evil another word however ultimately if someone rapes, kills, or does harm to someone you love it is not right name it whatever you wish as if you name it evil then it is impossible to state that God does not exist. The true meaning of Christianity is living the Holy Spirit filled life which logically is impossible to explain. The most difficult concept I believe for highly intellectually people as yourselves to believe in is that their is a God who exists. The average person writes and speaks at a grade 12 level if even that. The intelligence that I have is not in the area of the English language! If you wish for me to define what you are seeking in pure logical terms you are seeking the impossible as Christianity is not based on logic. It is much easier to base Christianity on the Old Covenant which was archaic for this reason Christ came to destroy the laws and give us hope.
“I personally find it kind of ironic you don’t wish for me to mention scripture however when it comes to proving your views that pedophile occurred in the Old Testament times you mention that the bible allowed this practice in the Old Testament. Is that not a little hypocritical? ”
You misquote me. I asked that you quote scripture only when it was in support of a specific argument regarding objective morality, not for the sake of preaching and not for it’s own sake. I could quote the writings of a moral relativist as though it had a higher truth, but I should know it would hold no value with you unless I explained why and how those writings were relevant. I was trying to avoid a discussion that consisted of 80 lines of biblical citation and 20 lines of logic… I didn’t think that was conducive to the spirit of the conversation.
“If you are going to mention the Old Testament regarding taking virgin children perhaps you should mention the passages that you are referring too. In the Old Testament God never allowed this and hated all evil and the abuse of children he hated the most as the following verses state in. ”
I was referring to Exodus 21:7-11 which pertains to the selling of young girls into debt slavery or forced marriage at very early ages. This was a response to your implication that Pedophilia was rampant now as a result of the decay of moral relativism. Most modern secular societies place strict restrictions on and penalties for engaging young people sexually, for a variety of very logical and well-understood reasons. My point stands.
The two passages you go on to quote deal with sacrifice to another god, Moloch, and have more to do with prohibiting the established practices of the polytheism that existed at the time (i.e. Gods or god-worship that was competing with Yahweh).
“the difference is that there is that you believe in evil but don’t believe in God”
I do not believe in objective evil, no. I I would call it a universally subjective immorality which, when severe enough, is often classified as “evil”. I also hold that the vast majority of those you consider evil are either overly greedy and selfish, are a product of a malignant environment, or have a psychological variance from what we consider the human norm (various degrees and intensities of sociopathy or psychopathy). Or, perhaps, they flagrantly disregard your most cherished religious beliefs.
When I said “man still gives in to his baser instincts” I meant exactly that… it is a reference to man’s evolution and capacity for more complex thought and association, not objective good and evil.
“To prove the theory that men is improving in morality or evolving you mention instances in the Bible where virgin children were taken as brides because it seems that you believe God commanded this however where this occurs in scripture is not mentioned as God never approved this type of immoral behavior to occur. ”
I answered this previously, with a citation.
“In theory you believe that the Old Testament is the Christian faith so anyone who believes in God is a Christian. Under this theory you paint all people who belief in God as a Christian including Hitler and the Germans in WW2.”
You brought up Hitler as an example of the failing of relative Atheist morality. I pointed out that according to historical writings, accounts and recordings Hitler considered himself a Christian, and it’s a matter of demography that most German soldiers at the time were Christian. This topic seems to sting you and you keep drawing back to it, but I don’t know what else to say that I haven’t already written.
“This theory is false and untrue as after Christ came to earth, crucified for our sins, and went back to heaven the Old Testament laws that you refer to were no longer valid.”
I understand the desire to sever the New Testament from the Old… Christianity has been attempting to do so since the general morality of the secular world began to question the “evil” contained in the scriptures… killing, slavery etc.. But not only is this disingenuous and the equivalent of “morality cherry-picking”, but there are an equal number of passages among the gospels that reinforce the adherence to “the laws” as there are passages that imply Christ’s death and resurrection somehow “rewrote all the rules”. Christianity revised the old testament Judaism and presented what God really meant to say based on the interpretation of a chosen vessel. Islam then attempted to do the same thing with Mohammed. Even John Smith did the same thing for the Mormons. The problem with disclaiming and declaring invalid the books that provide the foundation for your religion is that the things you claim are “objective” become less and less objective. And so it goes with morality.
But that’s all besides the point, because when I was referring to forced child marriage being practiced by Theists who believed their actions were objectively right… I could have been talking about devout Middle Ages Christians as easily as pre-Christ Jews. This is not a practice that ended with the writing of the New Testament… it ended for much of the civilized world with the evolution of secular morality. If you feel that’s incorrect, let’s focus on that point… I’m open to refutation.
“Mosab was taught the system which you believed in of morality which included killing the innocence. You obviously do not agree in the killing of innocent people however under your theory you believe that people can be taught morals without God.”
Yes.
“Mosab’s story shows that objective morals with out God is impossible.”
Yes.
Reread what you wrote. The first said morals. The second says objective morals. There is a difference.
I’m not willing to argue that objective morality can or cannot exist without God any more than I’m willing to argue whether Santa can or cannot fly without reindeer! My entire argument has been that there is no evidence of objective morality.
“The reason I keep mentioning these instances is to show that the evolution of morality is regressing not advancing. The theory that we no longer have the marrying of children as you mistakenly believe happened in the Bible that our morals are improving.”
What I’m trying to do is challenge you to look at the suffering man has endured throughout history. You can endlessly pick and choose abhorrent aspects of society or changes in the moral tide that infuriate your sensibilities, but…. never before in history has the concept of equality among people, classes, races, creeds and genders been so widespread and so fundamental to the common moral compass. Never before has Man thought so expansively about the overall good of Mankind. Never before have so many dared to accept personal responsibility for the flaws, the potential and the desired goals of the species.
Objective rules in an evolving world is moral and intellectual decrepitude. Man was not intended to have exactly the same moral understanding over thousands of years of rapid intellectual and cultural development any more than man was intended to forever live in a hut roasting rodents on a spit. But all in all I think we’re well equipped to the challenge of deciding our path and elevating our nature.
Murchad99
First and foremost I am not not God and I am not attempting to convert you as I have stated. The reason I quote scripture as I explained in one of he previous posts is for the advantage of others. If you wish to have a discussion with me and are requesting that I not include scripture verses and make accusations that it is a lack of self control or a tick then sure by all means you gave me the greatest compliment. I should have clarified what I meant by not practicing Christianity in public as many of the schools,court houses, are attempting to not allow Christianity to be allowed in the government institutions.
I personally find it kind of ironic you don’t wish for me to mention scripture however when it comes to proving your views that pedophile occurred in the Old Testament times you mention that the bible allowed this practice in the Old Testament. Is that not a little hypocritical?
If you are going to mention the Old Testament regarding taking virgin children perhaps you should mention the passages that you are referring too. In the Old Testament God never allowed this and hated all evil and the abuse of children he hated the most as the following verses state in.
Leviticus 18:21
“Do not permit any of your children to be offered as a sacrifice to Molech, for you must not bring shame on the name of your God. I am the Lord.
Leviticus 20:2
“Give the people of Israel these instructions, which apply both to native Israelites and to the foreigners living in Israel.“If any of them offer their children as a sacrifice to Molech, they must be put to death. The people of the community must stone them to death.
In your statement:
“man is by nature a sinner” is almost identical to “man still gives way to baser instincts” The major difference which does not make it identical is that yes they are similar however the difference is that there is that you believe in evil but don’t believe in God. The belief that you have mentioned is that man is basically good and that he evolves into a better person naturally. What the difference is that God through salvation bridged the gap. The difference in theory is found in
Galatians 3:11 So it is clear on one can be made right with God by trying to keep the law. For the scriptures say, “it is through faith that a righteous person has life.”
To prove the theory that men is improving in morality or evolving you mention instances in the Bible where virgin children were taken as brides because it seems that you believe God commanded this however where this occurs in scripture is not mentioned as God never approved this type of immoral behavior to occur. Yes there are many instances where evil occurred in the Old Testament.
“I’ll point out that you completely disregarded my point that until recent times this practice was happening in nations and by people who wholeheartedly followed the same faith you do”
In theory you believe that the Old Testament is the Christian faith so anyone who believes in God is a Christian. Under this theory you paint all people who belief in God as a Christian including Hitler and the Germans in WW2. This theory is false and untrue as after Christ came to earth, crucified for our sins, and went back to heaven the Old Testament laws that you refer to were no longer valid. The passages and events you are mentioning to prove your theory are no longer valid under the new covenant. The following is the explanation:
Hebrews 10:
1 The old system under the law of Moses was only a shadow, a dim preview of the good things to come, not the good things themselves. The sacrifices under that system were repeated again and again, year after year, but they were never able to provide perfect cleansing for those who came to worship. 2 If they could have provided perfect cleansing, the sacrifices would have stopped, for the worshipers would have been purified once for all time, and their feelings of guilt would have disappeared.
3 But instead, those sacrifices actually reminded them of their sins year after year. 4 For it is not possible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 5 That is why, when Christ[a] came into the world, he said to God,
“You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings.
But you have given me a body to offer.
6 You were not pleased with burnt offerings
or other offerings for sin.
7 Then I said, ‘Look, I have come to do your will, O God—
as is written about me in the Scriptures.’”[b]
8 First, Christ said, “You did not want animal sacrifices or sin offerings or burnt offerings or other offerings for sin, nor were you pleased with them” (though they are required by the law of Moses). 9 Then he said, “Look, I have come to do your will.” He cancels the first covenant in order to put the second into effect. 10 For God’s will was for us to be made holy by the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ, once for all time.
11 Under the old covenant, the priest stands and ministers before the altar day after day, offering the same sacrifices again and again, which can never take away sins. 12 But our High Priest offered himself to God as a single sacrifice for sins, good for all time. Then he sat down in the place of honor at God’s right hand. 13 There he waits until his enemies are humbled and made a footstool under his feet. 14 For by that one offering he forever made perfect those who are being made holy.
15 And the Holy Spirit also testifies that this is so. For he says,
16 “This is the new covenant I will make
with my people on that day,[c] says the Lord:
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds.”[d]
17 Then he says,
“I will never again remember
their sins and lawless deeds.”[e]
18 And when sins have been forgiven, there is no need to offer any more sacrifices.
The Old Testament faith is for the Jewish nation and were God’s people which were Jews. However after Christ the gentiles were able to accept Christ so to mention that people of my faith in the Old Testement times is false even though my heritage is of Germanic Jew does not make me a Christian.
Their are a number of reasons that I mentioned Mosab one is the theory that you believe morality can be taught. Mosab was taught the system which you believed in of morality which included killing the innocence. You obviously do not agree in the killing of innocent people however under your theory you believe that people can be taught morals without God. It was only when Mosab questioned the reasoning for his teaching of what others believed morals is that he ultimately came to the conclusion that he was taught the wrong morals. Eventually he asked Christ to forgive his sins and unlike North Americans when the accepted Christ people will try to kill him for his abandoning his moral beliefs. Mosab’s story shows that objective morals with out God is impossible. The belief which you are suggesting is that we don’t need to have a benchmark or a basis for moral laws as it is restrictive and does not allow us to evolve.
The fundamental belief which I think you believe is that man is inherently good which is the reasoning I am mentioned girls being forced to marry older men in Afghanistan. The abuse of children that is occurring through the internet and the very lax laws that our society has towards predators of children. The reason I keep mentioning these instances is to show that the evolution of morality is regressing not advancing. The theory that we no longer have the marrying of children as you mistakenly believe happened in the Bible that our morals are improving.
“I can come to terms with his failures and try to reason a way to make him better, rather than simply assume that man is nothing more than a sniveling wretched creature cosmically doomed to failure whose only recourse is to throw himself at the proverbial feet of a higher concept and beg for mercy for acting in a way consistent with how he was created”
Yes man is born into and evil disgusting world however I have never begged for mercy from God. The New Covenant that is in effect is very different than what your belief of Christianity is. The belief which you have is that Christianity is restrictive however what you fail to understand is that through the Holy Spirit there is a freedom not bondage as you seem to believe.
Andrew:
“If you are making comments on a Christian website and are requesting that scripture is not quoted unless it is regarding the point I am making then that is one of stupidest requests that a person can make on this site. I am not even attempting to convince you that you are wrong as I never will. I am only doing what my faith commands me to do which is to tell others about the good news of Christ and salvation.”
Attempting to convince me I’m wrong would be entirely appropriate, and I welcome it. What you have been doing is attempting to characterize me as confused and “unable to accept” or understand the obvious truth in front of me, which is patronizing. If the logic is self-evident it should be able to be successfully argued, and I certainly don’t recall attacking your intelligence or integrity (with the exception of comments regarding religion being prohibited in public, which I found ridiculous). And I really don’t understand why it’s either inappropriate or “stupid” to request you restrict bible-quoting to the discussion at hand… I have to trust that you have the self-control to keep from trying to convert me to the Good Word long enough to have a reasonable conversation. Do you have that self-control? Or is this like an unavoidable involuntary tick?
“the moral decay is happening in the USA due to the government changing the Judo-Christian values to the objective morality so they can evolve morality to allow the marrying of same sex and allow pedophiles.”
That’s the problem with objective morality… everyone thinks theirs is the objective one. The fact is, the so-called objective morality has changed and will continue to change throughout human history. Isn’t that in and of itself proof against the concept of objective morality?
“Mosab was taught what morality was for Hamas although you will argue that it was part of Muslim faith however the Hamas were taught morality which is the reason for mentioning Mosab.”
I’m afraid I don’t understand any of this section of your comment or the relevance to the argument at hand… but I’m open to the possibility I just didn’t read it in the right context. Mosab was taught a system of morality that much of the rest of humanity considers harsh and perverted… and he has since come to understand it differently, either because he was taught differently, reasoned out the logical inconsistencies of the group’s social and religious views and the hardship it causes for their own people, or the racial/religious/political hatred that previously dominated his thinking eventually gave way to the natural universal evolved human aversion to death and suffering. I don’t see how any of this supports a theistic objective morality.
“If we are capable of universal agreement on most of the basic moral of concepts then your view of what morality is must be pretty low. Just by viewing the last weeks news is an indication that the moral concepts are in severe decay.”
I asked a very specific question in my last post which you either overlooked or chose not to answer. How do all the events and tragedies you list in any way promote the theory that objective morality handed down from a greater level of existence exists and dominates mankind? If the world is riddled with scum and heinous acts, the explanation “man is by nature a sinner” is almost identical to “man still gives way to baser instincts”. Why do you think this contradicts my arguments and not your own? Please explain.
“There are many examples of Judges allowing pedophiles to run free as you may not believe this then research to discover what the average jail sentence if any that a pedophile receives. Then they allow them into the community!”
You keep coming back to pedophilia. Are you aware of any passage in the bible (the source of objective morality if I understand your position) that specifically rejects the practice? On the contrary there are numerous passages in the old testament that advise the Jews when slaying the population of some rival tribe to take for wives (forced of course) the young virgin girls. Today we consider pedophiles to be mentally defective and we track them. The system isn’t perfect, but neither is marching them into a gas chamber by the dozens.
“Marrying off of girls to older men is happening today not hundreds of years ago! Look to the countries in the middle east in Afghanistan where girls as young as 11 are being married off to older men. Why? Because they were taught what morality which you believe that man can teach morality because the heart of a man is basically good is your benchmark of morality that the society can teach morals!”
First, I’ll point out that you completely disregarded my point that until recent times this practice was happening in nations and by people who wholeheartedly followed the same faith you do, so there’s no reason to deflect to Afghanistan.
Second, this practice exists today in places that are otherwise resistant to the concept of universal subjective morality, who refuse to see beyond their culture (and faith) and entertain the overall human understanding of what is right and wrong. It’s practiced by people who still cling to the belief that they know what is objectively right and wrong. This is the third or fourth time you’ve made a case AGAINST objective morality.. I can’t help but point this out to you in the hope that you’ll help me understand the point you’re trying to make.
“You can choose to believe we don’t need a benchmark for morality however when you look around the World there are no morals only evil and darkness.”
I suppose I have a significantly higher opinion of what man is capable of. I can come to terms with his failures and try to reason a way to make him better, rather than simply assume that man is nothing more than a sniveling wretched creature cosmically doomed to failure whose only recourse is to throw himself at the proverbial feet of a higher concept and beg for mercy for acting in a way consistent with how he was created. I wish I could impart on you that optimism.
Murchad99,
If you are making comments on a Christian website and are requesting that scripture is not quoted unless it is regarding the point I am making then that is one of stupidest requests that a person can make on this site. I am not even attempting to convince you that you are wrong as I never will. I am only doing what my faith commands me to do which is to tell others about the good news of Christ and salvation. The reason that scriptures are mentioned on this site is so others who read the scriptures that I post can read and find the truth in what Christianity is unlike your distorted view. Unlike the main stream media the reason this blog site exists is to discuss scripture based views and I still maintain the reason you have difficulty with Christianity is because you lack the faith to accept that God can be three persons in one which is called the trinity. You don’t believe that God exists which is your right however when you finally do stand before him you will have no excuse of not knowing what salvation is as you have chosen to not believe as I have done my duty and if you reject it then that is your issue not mine. The suggestion that you are making is that we don’t need God to define the moral compass and the reason the scripture was quoted as I pointed out in one of the previous statements that the moral decay is happening in the USA due to the government changing the Judo-Christian values to the objective morality so they can evolve morality to allow the marrying of same sex and allow pedophiles. If you choose to post on this site then as we have freedom of religion which gives me the right to quote passages that I believe in.
“There is “immorality” in the world because people are selfish, greedy, easily corrupted and have a variance in psychology and neurochemistry. The human psyche is a constant battleground between the instinctual desire to act in ways that benefit the self and the evolved desire to act in ways that benefit others. The latter has two advantages that come immediately to mind: moral behavior is taught from early childhood (and most things we’re taught or observe from early development tend to shape us significantly as adults) … and our complex and evolved brains have developed a wide range of powerful and refined emotions which serve as a motivator and moral level. Those advantages is what keeps most people acting in a way that supports social harmony, most of the time.”
There is no benchmark that is mentioned just a theory because our human brain is so intelligent we can make our own rules without God involved as we evolve to better human beings. This is an excuse to allow perversion to happen in society where grown men can marry children and same sex can marry each other so that they have the same freedoms and rights and if divorce occurs they can have access to splitting the assets. Lets then test your theory of morality being taught shall we?
Under the theory of Objective Morality lets discuss Mosab Hassan Yousef who was taught this theory as according to your theory the benchmark of morality can be taught. Which is like putting a ship in a storm and not dropping anchor and saying where the ship goes is our direction instead of having an anchor there is none.
“Mosab Hassan Yousef was exultant when two Hamas pipe bombs ripped through a Tel Aviv-bound bus, killing six people and wounding 30 others.
“I was proud of Hamas and I saw the attacks as a huge victory against the Israeli occupation,” the son of Hamas founder Sheik Hassan Yousef writes in his autobiography, Son of Hamas.
A devout Muslim, who, while collaborating with the Israelis, struggled with his faith for six years before secretly becoming a Christian, Mr. Yousef now blames Islam for much of the Middle East’s problems. The following link is the story that was written regarding Mosab for your reference. http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/11/11/peter-goodspeed-the-son-of-hamas%e2%80%99-founder-says-there-is-no-hope-to-reform-islam/
Mosab was taught what morality was for Hamas although you will argue that it was part of Muslim faith however the Hamas were taught morality which is the reason for mentioning Mosab.
“We’re back again, apparently, to the veiled assumption that those who don’t believe in objective morality are two steps from mindless hedonism, pointless violence and anarchy. Man’s capacity for reason is capable of determining on a broad and narrow scale what is and is not morally justifiable, and while it may vary between individuals or groups (just as it does among Theists, or Deists) we are capable of universal agreement on most of the basic moral concepts.”
If we are capable of universal agreement on most of the basic moral of concepts then your view of what morality is must be pretty low. Just by viewing the last weeks news is an indication that the moral concepts are in severe decay. From the Italy prime minster having to resign for his many sex escapees,Obama lying about what happened with the killing of Bin Laden, a coach having sex with a boy and the assistant coach seeing this and doing nothing which resulted in resignations of many of the coaching staff. This caused a riot at the campus as they believe under the evolution of morality that having sex with boys is moral. I find this argument a little on the weak side.
“Throughout history, children of both sexes were subjected to arranged marriages. A few hundred years ago, girls in the early to mid teenage years were married off to older men and all the other details that implies. All of this was perfectly appropriate and common in nations or regions where Theism was prevalent. In the overall history of mankind, the change from that has been very recent. Pedophiles running free? No, the difference is we now identify them as pedophiles. That’s evolution of social morality… and it’s one of many examples.”
There are many examples of Judges allowing pedophiles to run free as you may not believe this then research to discover what the average jail sentence if any that a pedophile receives. Then they allow them into the community! Marrying off of girls to older men is happening today not hundreds of years ago! Look to the countries in the middle east in Afghanistan where girls as young as 11 are being married off to older men. Why? Because they were taught what morality which you believe that man can teach morality because the heart of a man is basically good is your benchmark of morality that the society can teach morals! The very things you are saying is no longer is occurring IS occurring.
In Acts 3: 19 And the Judgement is based on this fact: God’s light came into the world, but people loved the darkness more than the light, for there actions were evil.
This is the basis of all the strife which it the darkness and by reading the news headlines is proof enough of it. The hope is the light which is accepting Christ and living a Holy Spirit filled life which prevents the rapes, killings, and perverse acts that is happening in society. You can choose to believe we don’t need a benchmark for morality however when you look around the World there are no morals only evil and darkness.
Andrew:
“Then if we are evolving in our objective morality why is there so much immortality in the World? Unless of course you don’t believe that killing others, raping, cheating,stealing is immoral. Where is your benchmark of morality ?”
There is “immorality” in the world because people are selfish, greedy, easily corrupted and have a variance in psychology and neurochemistry. The human psyche is a constant battleground between the instinctual desire to act in ways that benefit the self and the evolved desire to act in ways that benefit others. The latter has two advantages that come immediately to mind: moral behavior is taught from early childhood (and most things we’re taught or observe from early development tend to shape us significantly as adults) … and our complex and evolved brains have developed a wide range of powerful and refined emotions which serve as a motivator and moral level. Those advantages is what keeps most people acting in a way that supports social harmony, most of the time.
We’re back again, apparently, to the veiled assumption that those who don’t believe in objective morality are two steps from mindless hedonism, pointless violence and anarchy. Man’s capacity for reason is capable of determining on a broad and narrow scale what is and is not morally justifiable, and while it may vary between individuals or groups (just as it does among Theists, or Deists) we are capable of universal agreement on most of the basic moral concepts.
I’ll turn the question back to you: If there is Objective Morality, handed down by a higher authority, a natural basis that man is by design intended to follow….. why is there so much immorality in the world? Why so much killing, raping, cheating, stealing? And why is a good portion of it committed by those who acknowledge and/or profess to believe in the existence of objective morality?
If the answer is “because people don’t follow the path they’re supposed to”, then your answer for objective morality is just as valid when given for universal subjective morality.
“Therefore objective morality exists as per human terms defined by Stalin in his religion but Hitlers morality was not so good because he was a Christian!”
Hitler and Stalin attempted to impose morality that was in many ways contrary to the natural universal morality. The people had to be convinced to supplant their preexisting morality with the moral authority of the totalitarian state… or fear, ignorance and gradual adjustment via desensitization made the shift possible.
“Fifty years ago living together was considered immoral and if pregnancy happened outside of marriage the woman went away on a long trip and gave up the baby. Fast forward to today men can have sex with men, woman with woman which is considered normal. Is the next step in objective morality allowing someone to have sex with kids and pedophiles being allowed to roam freely as they are doing so now as there seems to be no consequences. This is the morality that has evolved so what is next?”
Throughout history, children of both sexes were subjected to arranged marriages. A few hundred years ago, girls in the early to mid teenage years were married off to older men and all the other details that implies. All of this was perfectly appropriate and common in nations or regions where Theism was prevalent. In the overall history of mankind, the change from that has been very recent. Pedophiles running free? No, the difference is we now identify them as pedophiles. That’s evolution of social morality… and it’s one of many examples.
“The real reason that you are having difficulty in accepting the concept is because you are unable to accept that God the Father,Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit is what Christianity is which requires faith. ”
Please… let’s agree to not preach, not attempt to proselytize, not quote the bible unless it’s contributing to an argument for the topic on hand. We’re talking about objective morality.
By the way, happy 11:11 11/11/11 everyone.
Murchad99,
Romans8: 3 The law of Moses was unable to save us because of the weakness of our sinful nature.[a] So God did what the law could not do. He sent his own Son in a body like the bodies we sinners have. And in that body God declared an end to sin’s control over us by giving his Son as a sacrifice for our sins.
The basis for most of your arguments concerns the religion however the religion as you defined it is null and void. You tend to talk above people for whatever reason perhaps to make others feel that refuting your argument is futile as you have yourself convinced that what you believe is correct. Then believe it just like the captain of the Titanic as he helped build a ship that was unsinkable however when the iceberg hit the unsinkable ship sank and history tells the story! You believe in the philosophy of morality objective and believe that we can be moral without God. Then if we are evolving in our objective morality why is there so much immortality in the World? Unless of course you don’t believe that killing others, raping, cheating,stealing is immoral. Where is your benchmark of morality ? I am sure you will have a legalistic answer as the what morality is. According to your false statement Germans who you consider to be Christians killed millions and Stalin was a god who formed his own religion called Communism that had laws and regulations. Therefore objective morality exists as per human terms defined by Stalin in his religion but Hitlers morality was not so good because he was a Christian!
Fifty years ago living together was considered immoral and if pregnancy happened outside of marriage the woman went away on a long trip and gave up the baby. Fast forward to today men can have sex with men, woman with woman which is considered normal. Is the next step in objective morality allowing someone to have sex with kids and pedophiles being allowed to roam freely as they are doing so now as there seems to be no consequences. This is the morality that has evolved so what is next? The persecutions of Christians who do not believe like you do in the objective morality which is already happening in many countries. If you spewed your philosophy in Iran it would taken seriously and if your lucky they would only give you the lashes. History shows that the more they try to stamp out Christianity the stronger Christianity becomes and it has nothing to do with forcing religion down a persons throat. I am sure you are heart broken that this occurs and are on debating in code and circles which only you seem to understand.
The real reason that you are having difficulty in accepting the concept is because you are unable to accept that God the Father,Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit is what Christianity is which requires faith.
I have found that in my experience that arguing is an exercise in futility and as the wisest man quoted in Proverbs 28: 2 When there is moral rot within a nation, its government topples easily. But wise and knowledgeable leaders bring stability.
jaybo:
“I think your last sentence is almost self-refuting, Murchad. How can anything be an ‘horrific atrocity’ without there being ‘objective morality’. By what standard can anything be called right or wrong or can there be any prescriptive moral duties without something larger than ourselves? As Dostoevsky said, “Without God, all things are permitted”.”
Please see my prior post explaining in detail the concept of universal subjective morality, why I feel it is compatible with naturalism and evolution, and why it can and should continue to govern mankind’s actions. THAT was the post people should have been replying to, not my refutation of Andrew’s statements parroting apologist literature that seeks to blame some of humanity’s greatest failings on Atheism’s supposed lack of moral basis.
So to get the thread back on track, here are two questions regarding the necessity of Objective Morality:
1) What moral tenets or beliefs can you name that do not derive from the basic concept of the Golden Rule?
2) Given that moral behavior predates monotheism and has often developed in the absence of or rejection of theism, what evidence is there to refute the possibility that man evolved morality much the same way as language and speech?
Murchad99:”Stalin told his people what was right and wrong, demanded they serve humbly and without question, and threatened extreme punishment for disobedience. Religion tells its followers what is right and wrong, demands they serve God humbly and without reservation, and threatens disobedience with the eternal torture of a burning demon-infested Hell. In all I think your post very clearly points out how those horrific atrocities in history that weren’t the direct result of Theism came about because of a very similar attempt to create or perpetrate Objective Morality.”
I think this discussion has gotten a bit off the topic of the article.
I think your last sentence is almost self-refuting, Murchad. How can anything be an ‘horrific atrocity’ without there being ‘objective morality’. By what standard can anything be called right or wrong or can there be any prescriptive moral duties without something larger than ourselves? As Dostoevsky said, “Without God, all things are permitted”.
This is not a specific appeal to Christianity (although I am a Christian), but it is an appeal to theism.
Murchad99:
I first was going to respond to many of your comments however it would be an exercise in futility and the reason is simple you have yourself convinced that Christianity is a religion. In 100 years from now we both will not be on earth and then you will know if you are right in believing there is no God so I will not attempt to shove Christianity down your throat. Christianity is God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Many people believe in God but not Jesus or the Holy Spirit and by saying I believe in God you mistakenly think that is Christianity so under this belief you say Hitler, and the German soldiers were Christians. Your idea of Christianity is that it is full of laws to follow such as Hitler and Stalin’s laws therefore we Christians are weak minded to follow such a religion. You obviously are a very educated man and have spent years in university studying and confirming your beliefs that Christianity is a religion and which you want to rid North America of. You take great joy with writing your thesis on this site as to why Christianity is wrong and most likely laughing to yourself because you are trying to make fools of people who challenge you and due to your high degree of education you will have an answer for all the challenges so fine I won’t waste my time challenging your view if you wish to be an Atheist then be one.
If this were a Muslim site and you were posing these questions I highly doubt that you would be alive very long or have the courage to question there prophet. In essence just the fact that you are allowed to comment on this site should be a testament of what Christianity is about as if it were a site discussing the Koran you would not have the courage to use your education to challenge them and would be blocked from the site.
King Solomon was much more educated and wiser than any of us ever will be and I leave his words of wisdom. Proverbs 18: 2 Fools have no interest in understanding; they only want to air there own opinions.
good article, some thing to think about for sure.
Andrew: “Using the logic that you are suggesting defining morality without God has not worked out too well in history. If you research the 1930?s then Hitler came to power and he decided to define morality in human terms such as no smoking, drinking, etc. he even wrote a book on it called Mien Kaumph. The masses agreed with the morality that he described in his book and became an essence a God or father figure to his people. The end result was millions of Christian, Jews, Russian, Soldiers, and civilians in Europe were slaughtered. Not to mention the millions of rapes that occurred by the German soldiers and atrocities to the POW’s under the new morality without God law. ”
Andrew, I’ll not speak to your condemnation of Vulcan, but your vision of Hitler as an Atheist is a commonly-held misconception, one which has been enabled quite disingenuously by Christian apologists. Hitler was in fact a Christian who believed it was God’s will that Germany rise in power and that he was acting in God’s defense in persecuting the Jews. Mein Kampf contains numerous religious references. Even if you were to deny his religious beliefs in the face of the extensive evidence to the contrary, the fact remains the German soldiers who actually committed the murders, rapes and atrocities were overwhelmingly Christian.
“If the morality of Hitler is not to your liking then lets take the morality of Russia under Lenin where he proposed what you are suggesting to define morality in human terms without God. The mentality of equal sharing did not work out so well as they defined morality as being equal and no one being above another. You take that a step further when Stalin became leader he was even more of a brute and killer than Hitler was as they defined morality in human terms which meant most of Stalin’s Generals met an early forced retirement either in Siberia or six feet under.”
Lenin and Stalin are prime examples of the cult of personality, whereby political leaders gain the unquestioning faith, trust, adoration and loyalty of a populace to facilitate the introduction of their radical ideas. Essentially they take the role of religion and have many of the same attributes, even if they are by nature anti-Theist. A totalitarian dictator (or in some cases oligarchy) seeks to become a worldly God by whom all morality is defined, objectively.
Stalin told his people what was right and wrong, demanded they serve humbly and without question, and threatened extreme punishment for disobedience. Religion tells its followers what is right and wrong, demands they serve God humbly and without reservation, and threatens disobedience with the eternal torture of a burning demon-infested Hell. In all I think your post very clearly points out how those horrific atrocities in history that weren’t the direct result of Theism came about because of a very similar attempt to create or perpetrate Objective Morality.
“The danger of the past of Russia and Germany is very close to happening in North America. Perhaps not in the literal since of the word with the physical killings. However how often have you heard the viscous, vile,personal attacks on Christians? Not to mention any public place not being able to have any Christianity at all.”
Allow me to take a moment to break from civility and shed a sarcastic tear for the poor plight of American Christians. What a terrible state of affairs when the country that claims to have freedom of religion starts taking it seriously in tiny little spurts. Of course, what you really mean when you say “public place not being able to have any Christianity at all” is not being able to shove your beliefs down other peoples’ throats in public, in court, in public schools…. is not being given special privileges simply because you feel a swollen bulbous sense of entitlement. Anyone who has the spectacular ignorance to say “freedom of religion does not mean freedom FROM religion” makes my short list of people who should be deported immediately with nothing but a water bottle, a field ration and a bible… good luck, God be with you.
Darren Hewer: “But if the foundation for morality is the Golden Rule, what foundation is the Golden Rule based on? Aren’t “welfare of our fellow human beings” and “Golden Rule” moral rules? How then can they provide the foundation for moral rules?”
Once we agree that all basic morality stems from the Golden Rule (and the Silver Rule for that matter), the further steps are fairly straightforward. Nature rewards organisms that work together to achieve common goals, and as such psychological attributes that promote peaceful cohabitation and cooperation will lead to more successful, reproductively robust, defensible and productive communities within a species. Organisms that evolve these tendencies prosper and contribute to the survival of the community… while those who are prone to attack each other, hoard or steal resources from within the community and fail to share or demonstrate discovered or evolved knowledge with other members will find it harder to expand, reproduce, progress and weather the environmental dangers of an untamed world. The ethic of reciprocity is in virtually every respect a product of Natural Selection on social beings.
As we have evolved and become more intellectually complicated, so to has our morality become more complicated and culturally influenced. One could make the argument that, in those instances where the Golden Rule breaks down within a community, it is primarily because certain elements of the group find it beneficial and are able to profit from it without disrupting the overall structure. Thus you have alpha males/females, social classes and strata, aristocracy, slavery and so on (one might add organized religion to the mix, as it quite openly strives to escape reciprocity).
To answer the original question, I would state first that there is no objective morality but rather a basic Universal Subjective Morality crafted through the history of our evolution by natural selection, further aided by the verbal, literary and conceptual teaching of it to our young. And while the details and derivatives of this morality change from culture to culture, the core essence is broken only by either greed, psychological deviation or religion and cults of personality.
To go a step further, presupposing the existence of objective morality, there is no logical necessity to conclude that the source would be God… certainly not the God described by Abrahamic monotheism.
Vulcan, It appears that you are the one who is making a fool of oneself as we are entitled to our opinion. If a person demeans another for their view it truly shows how short sited one can be. Using the logic that you are suggesting defining morality without God has not worked out too well in history. If you research the 1930′s then Hitler came to power and he decided to define morality in human terms such as no smoking, drinking, etc. he even wrote a book on it called Mien Kaumph. The masses agreed with the morality that he described in his book and became an essence a God or father figure to his people. The end result was millions of Christian, Jews, Russian, Soldiers, and civilians in Europe were slaughtered. Not to mention the millions of rapes that occurred by the German soldiers and atrocities to the POW’s under the new morality without God law.
If the morality of Hitler is not to your liking then lets take the morality of Russia under Lenin where he proposed what you are suggesting to define morality in human terms without God. The mentality of equal sharing did not work out so well as they defined morality as being equal and no one being above another. You take that a step further when Stalin became leader he was even more of a brute and killer than Hitler was as they defined morality in human terms which meant most of Stalin’s Generals met an early forced retirement either in Siberia or six feet under. Russia became a police state where millions of people disappeared and were sent to concentration camps or killed and buried in mass graves. When WW2 occurred in Russia his morality by purging the generals he was fearful of in effect almost allowed the NAZI’s to take over control of Russia. The Russian soldiers took back there country and not only took back their country but annexed much of Eastern Europe for there own gains. When Russia finally invaded Germany no woman no matter what age or marriage status in the majority of cases were brutally raped. Sure we think it as today as in the past however whole family members this happened too. The reason for the history lesson is you claim that we who believe that morality are fools because. I wonder if the people in Stalin and Hitler’s regime would agree with you that morality can occur with out God. I highly doubt it and perhaps the next time you comment you should refrain from calling someone a fool until you have done research on the past history of other nations who have defined Morality without God.
The danger of the past of Russia and Germany is very close to happening in North America. Perhaps not in the literal since of the word with the physical killings. However how often have you heard the viscous, vile,personal attacks on Christians? Not to mention any public place not being able to have any Christianity at all. Today with social media peoples lives can be and are destroyed at lightning speed all for sake of the human morality. My friend your wish is already happening and you don’t seem to realize that the human morality is already here my only pray is that us Christians will have the strength to stand up to the true morality which is God’s morality not yours. God Bless and I will make sure that I will pray for you and that God will reveal his morality to you.
I’ll just reply to Vulcan’s comment about humans lacking morality in this manner; what constitutes your morality as opposed to someone else’s? And why do you think that what certain people do is wrong, like the people you mentioned in the headlines of the newspapers? I’m sure if you asked the people whose actions you disagreed with, they would more often than not try to justify to you why their actions are right in some way. And herein lies the fact of the matter: that it is an inherent quality, an inherent need in human beings to feel that what they’re doing is morally right. It cannot be baseless that this is such a prevalent thought in the minds of people. What evolutionary gain would there be to winning a simple intellectual argument besides bolstering your ego a bit? That does nothing to help you survive or produce offspring. Therefore I conclude that there is something outside of simple survival instinct that prompts us to all feel that we should act in a certain way. True, millions of years of evolution have produced our species, and that’s certainly plenty of time to develop something as amazing as the human mind. But I believe that human morality is a miracle in and of itself, indicative of something much bigger than we can even begin to comprehend. I don’t ask that you agree with my argument; merely that you consider it.
Without God we are nothing!!!
Winthrop, you should change your name to Euthrypho. The Christian response to Euthyphro’s dilemma is that God’s moral commands for humanity are good because God is good. Morality is grounded in the immutable character of God, who is perfectly good. His commands are not whims, but rooted in His holiness.
1. That which is objective is not subjective.
2. That which is subjective must be freely decided by a moral agent.
3. God is a moral agent with the ability to freely decide what is right and wrong.
4. If God exists and has decided what is right and wrong, morality is subjective.
or
1. That which is objective is not subjective.
2. That which is subjective must be freely decided by a moral agent.
3. An omnimax being, such as God, would be responsible for for the creation of everything.
4. Objective morality as a quality is not predicated on the decision of any moral agent and is necessary and uncreated.
5. There exists something in the universe, objective morality, that God did not create.
6. God did not create morality or god is not an omnimax being responsible for all creation.
John, you’ve made some thoughtful comments, and there are many areas that I think we would agree. For example, it sounds like you think certain acts are really right or wrong, and I agree. And as you’ve suggested, some situations are morally complex. (Although not knowing what to do in situation ‘x’ (whatever ‘x’ might be) doesn’t imply anything about the existence or source of moral values.)
I think we can separate the question raised in this article into three parts:
#1) Does objective morality (aka real right & wrong, or good & evil) exist?
(If a person answers “no” to #1 then I think they are mistaken, but the next two questions then become irrelevant to them.)
#2) What is the foundation for grounding what is right and wrong?
#3) What obligation do we have for acting in a manner consistent with what is right and wrong?
Regarding #2, the foundation of moral values, you say “the foundation of ethics would not collapse in the absence of an arbiter of supreme value. The foundation would be a regard for the welfare of our fellow human beings and the Golden Rule – a rule which makes sense whether God exists or not.”
The question is not whether or not people can behave morally without making reference to God. (Clearly they can, at very least to large extent.) Similarly, the question is not whether the Golden Rule makes sense or not: We’re talking about grounding, ie whether or not the Golden Rule provides a foundation (explanation) for objective morality.
But if the foundation for morality is the Golden Rule, what foundation is the Golden Rule based on? Aren’t “welfare of our fellow human beings” and “Golden Rule” moral rules? How then can they provide the foundation for moral rules? I would suggest that the only basis for objective morals (aka laws) is a law-giver; that moral law-giver would need to be self-sufficient (not dependent on anything external for its existence, thus requiring no further grounding/foundation), intelligent, powerful, etc, all qualities which God (and uniquely God) possesses.
Regarding #3 (what obligation we have for behaving morally) I can see at least two reasons to think that the naturalistic morality view is inferior to basing our views on God. The first is that merely describing the way things are does not imply obligation. As C. S. Lewis put it, you can’t get an “ought” from an “is”. Observing how the world is cannot lead us to any obligation to behave in a particular way. You may say to someone, “You should follow the Golden Rule.” To which someone may respond, “Why should I?” The word “should” implies obligation, some sort of authority or non-arbitrary outside standard that can be referenced. Where could this come from in a God-free system?
The second reason is that any naturalistic morality is ultimately unfair, and therefore immoral. Human beings crave justice; any system of morality that was unjust would be by definition immoral. But if there is no afterlife, then life itself is ultimately unfair since good deeds will often go unrewarded and bad behavior will often go unpunished. Therefore, only a moral system that includes an afterlife (and by implication, God) can be just. Any such moral system that does not is immoral, and therefore deficient.
The existence of God would certainly bolster and shore up the moral and ethical assumptions by which we live, and the courses of action we take in life. But I certainly believe that the foundation of ethics would not collapse in the absence of an arbiter of supreme value. The foundation would be a regard for the welfare of our fellow human beings and the Golden Rule–a rule which makes sense whether God exists or not.
For some persons, the absence of a Supreme Being and arbiter of value might make ethics seem baseless. But, even without God (whose existence I doubt, though do not deny outright), I would hate being, for example, lied to by another human being (and deceiving has been called one of the worst things one human being can do to another), and would regard it as unethical, i.e., gravely unfair and a denial of my personhood and personal worth (which, by the way, I assert simply as a value unto itself, not on the basis of God’s having created me in His divine image or some such thing).
Ultimately, there may be no basis for my belief in individual worth, but in the absence of a visible or revealed God, I am not willing to forfeit that belief. And I am not prepared to equate rational creatures capable of having this debate with the animals of the jungle who know no morality (though this may not be the case, for I understand that a certain consideration for the welfare of members of the same species is exemplified among many sub-human species). The existence of a supreme being who would make all right and just in the end is a comforting thought, but even doubting such a being and afterlife, I want certain things to be true of my life, and of others’ lives, here and now, from a sense of fairness.
With or without God, we humans are left struggling to work out for ourselves, in the context of our relationships with our fellows, a workable ethics. Certainly, even for believers, it is far from easy to arrive at agreement regarding certain acts–abortion, euthanasia, punishment of capital offenders. If God has revealed what is right vs. wrong in such matters to them, why do even they disagree by the way? After all, there are believers who defend all of the above, and others who are opposed. It seems they struggle in roughly the same way as non-believers to grasp the objective moral standard in such matters.
And if somebody asks me, on what basis, if I deny that God is necessary for the establishment of general ethical standards to guide the interactions of human beings (I say general, for I allow for a great deal of disagreement as to the thorny issues I mentioned in the previous paragraph) I oppose his beating me up for no apparent reason, or stealing my hard-earned money, or destroying my property, I admit that I cannot say to him: “Well, it is wrong because (either) God would frown upon it, and it is from Him that morality and moral obligation flow.” I would simply ask the man if it would be okay with him if I beat him up (that is, not in return for his beating me, but in the first place), or beat his mother or his child. My objection, in other words, would be based on the Golden Rule, the standard of fairness and mutual respect among persons, as the basis for moral action. And I submit that this is a considerably more immediate basis for my objection than bringing the existence of a being we cannot see, and in whom both of us may disbelieve.
This is an excellent article. I agree totally that objective morality can not exist without god. Arguments for this are well presented on the article.
The problem is the following: why should we automatically insist that objective morality exists? There seem to be no definite proof of this. Even if all the civilizations of the world share the same views about what is right/wrong (which is not the case), still it would not be definite proof. It could just be, that normal biological evolution has builded us in a way that embraces certain “feelings” or intuitions.
Vulcan said: “The assumption that moral principles cannot exist without god has no logical premises, therefore your argument is invalid.”
Sir or madam, I don’t mean to cause any undue offense, but you should understand the terms you use before you use them. I think what you meant to say is that you think the argument is unsound. The two premise, one conclusion argument as presented is entirely valid; meaning, IF each of the two premises are true as stated, then the conclusion logically follows. What you are disputing is not the validity of the argument, you are disputing the soundness. So, before calling someone a fool, please make sure you understand the terms you are using.
You agree that “we do know that moral principles do exist.” So, we can agree about that. Where you differ with the author (and myself I presume) is in the source for those principles (laws, truths, values, etc). Can you explain then, first, how you know that they exist, and second, where they find their grounding? Note that morals as we understand and apply them carry with them moral imperative, that is, they do not just describe how things are, they suggest how things ought to be.
Although we agree about the existence of moral truths, apparently we disagree about the existence of God. I do not define faith as the lack of good reasons to believe something; rather I would define faith something like “Trust in something that is trustworthy based on good reasons, sufficient to cause action.” So arguments in favor of God’s existence are important to me. While I agree God’s existence cannot be entirely proven (or disproven) via philosophical arguments (in the same way that almost nothing can be conclusively, 100% proven via such arguments) the arguments do represent part of a cumulative case that, when considered in total … well, it’s a case that I think is rather compelling.
Using your same line of reasoning, the absence of moral principles must then disprove the existence of god. Judging by newspaper headlines I would say that there is certainly a lack of morality among humans. So either this must imply that god does not exist, or that he only exists in certain places (where people act morally) but does not exist in places where immoral acts are performed at a given time.
Your reasoning is flawed. The assumption that moral principles cannot exist without god has no logical premises, therefore your argument is invalid. We do know that moral principles do exist, but we cannot attribute moral principles to his absence or presence. Without your first flawed assumption your argument does not hold. There is no way that logic can be used to prove or disprove the presence of a god (or gods). That is the essence of faith (or lack thereof). I suggest you read a book on formal logic before you make a fool of yourself in public again.