hello again, goodthief. i've read some of the evolutionary arguments for altruism, and to some extent it makes sense to me. but if you are claiming there is no "good" without god, the burden is upon you.

how does the notion of god help in discussions of morality? you may say god is the source of morality. i don't care. my question is how does saying that help? does it tell you what the morality is? does it say the same to you as it does to tim costello, or george pell, or jerry falwell?

you and i can clearly talk about goodness. we may not agree on all moral questions, but we share a large common ground. we can do this even though i do not believe in your god. i am good or bad independent of whether i believe in your god.

i don't think your claim that god is the source of morality is wrong, i think it's pointless. unless you tell me the point.

As a child, when you did something that was seen as unacceptable, did your parents or teacher ever say to you:
“Imagine that EVERYONE did what you just did/wanted what you are asking for?”
This question made me quickly realise that what I did or wanted was selfish or inconsiderate.

Later, I discovered that this kind of thinking is a recognised philosophical way of thinking called the Categorical Imperative:
“Whatever you do, consider the consequences if your actions were a universal law.”
This rule has much in common with the Golden rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Morality doesn’t have to be complicated; we just need empathy and a little logic to apply one of the above ways of thinking. We need to test our own actions before we take them by imagining what the community would be like if everyone acted as we do, or that these things were done unto us. God doesn't need to be in the picture.

I don’t want to leave out this famous quote that probably every parent uses and was said to me whenever I wanted to do or have something simply ‘because everyone else has this or does this, too.’
Parent: “If your friends jump off a cliff, would you jump off, too?” End of discussion.
You are an individual, you should think for yourself rather than blindly follow others’ actions or instructions whether they come from friends or a holy book.
Religion teaches people to follow certain instructions and rules blindly.

Interesting video, Fractelle; it shows clearly that survival of individual social animals depends on how the group as a whole functions.

Bushbasher, I agree, it is of uttermost importance to test the morality of God point-by-point.
There is a significant number of points in holy books that, because of the moving zeitgeist, are regarded as extremely immoral today.

Going by many of the Posts, looks like Socrates was close to the truth when he said - Out with the Gods and in with the Good.

Maybe the boy Jesus was also close to the truth when he said - Blessed Are, rather than - Though Shalt, the phrase Love your Enemy, also giving much food for thought, especially in these days of such hatred between America and Iran.

In fact it has been said that at the time of the early Jesus, the Great Library of Alexandria was still in existence, most of the people in study there being Jews, among them possibly being the Men of Wisdom the boy Jesus is said to have associated with?

Maybe it is about time we tried to make clearer connections between genuine history and definitive portions of the New Testament.

Boaz,

I'm amazed that you keep pushing this line that morality comes from God or the Bible, when you are proven time and time again, to have a more flawed case than the Atheists and Agnostics have for the origins of morality.

I've already been through this with you before.

<<But the law of God.. if followed will prevent atrocities between groups.>>

So how then, do you propose, are we able cherry-pick the good bits out of the Bible and not follow the bad bits (which some still do)? It had to be a factor outside Christianity.

How do we know that Jesus was to be followed, and not the disgraceful God of the Old Testament? What was it that gave us the ability to know which parts were good and which parts were bad?

Explaining morality with the 'God did it' explanation is extremely infantile compared to all the other explanations we have.

You're 'raping and pillaging' argument ignores so much that it's hard to even know where to begin. You really don't understand evolution at all, do you?

Goodthief,

<<What’s the no-God explanation of why we should succeed, rather than simply want to?>>

“Need to” would be better wording, because it would partly give you and answer to your question.

Explaining the 'spark' that you're referring to, with God, is intellectually narrow and lazy, and is a classic example of the point that I have raised many times on OLO, that religion can hinder our curiosity and discovery.

There are far more logical explanations to the 'spark' than the 'God did it' explanation. That being said, Bushbasher has a good point when he said: "The burden of proof is on you".

Fractelle, The video is enthralling, but not relevant. I know things we call “good” happen, and not just among buffalo. I even know the human species “needs” to survive. But this doesn’t mean we “should” survive. I have a reason for saying we should. You don’t – see Yabby’s post – or, at least, you haven’t given a reason yet.

You seem to think believing in God is essentially a matter of need. Perhaps for some believers it is, but not all. I’m pretty sure I’d find life easier without this belief.

Hi bushbasher. All I’m saying is that I have a reason for saying that moral ideas are “good” – ie because they come from God. The evolutionists simply say that altruism happens. They say it’s to preserve the human race. But, why? I say the human race is extremely special and infinitely valuable, and therefore worth a lot of trouble preserving, because of the divine spark we all possess (I believe). The evolutionists don't seem to have a reason for saying the human race is worth preserving, but just that the human race will in fact try to preserve itself.

AJ Philips, “Need to” isn’t any more useful than “want to”. It just means altruism happens, which I already know. I’m still waiting for an evolutionist to tell my why it “should” happen – a reason why the human race is worth preserving. Once you do that, you can claim to have an idea of “good”. I won’t have to be impressed with it, any more than you are about God, but at least you’ll have a basis.

Meanwhile, to speak of the “spark” is only lazy if there’s no God.

Celivia, I think your post describes common ground – how particular principles are developed. This is probably true, whether the theists or the atheists are right. You speak of “selfish and inconsiderate” as if they’re bad. Why are they bad? Why should human beings be considered? Just for my own self-preservation, is that the best reason you have?

Pax,

goodthief, please argue with others over the claims and implications of evolution. to raise this with me here is simply misdirection. the issue i raised with you is solely the moral value of your belief in god, nothing else.

i ask you again, what is the benefit of claiming morality comes from god? why should i care? to say "moral ideas are 'good' " is simply tautology, and a tautology i'm perfectly capable of without god.

consider any contentious moral issue: abortion, or capital punishment or homosexuality or whatever. you choose. then, tell me how god being the source of morality helps you think about that question. tell me how you can think about that question more clearly than me. if you claim that you can't then, again, i see no value or interest in your claims about god. if you claim you can, then you are saying something of substance, but i think you'll have a hell of a time defending it.