The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Morals or ethics > Comments

Morals or ethics : Comments

By John Turner, published 11/7/2008

How often has religion supported war and failed to condemn injustice such as abject poverty?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
John – You state: “Modern science is leading humanity (albeit very slowly) towards a charter for rational, logical moral and ethical behaviour.”

Modern science can tell us many things about this amazing universe we live in, but one thing at least that science can tell us nothing about is how things ought to be. For example, science can tell us that a certain quantity of cyanide will kill a person, but science cannot tell us whether or not we ought to poison our grannie with cyanide to gain her inheritance. If you think otherwise please give an explanation of how science alone, without trying to sneak in any ethical imperatives, can tell us how we ought to behave.

Good luck, because it cannot be done
Posted by GP, Friday, 11 July 2008 9:52:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Funny coincidence, I have just been reading about William Chillingworth, an English divine who died for the Royalist cause in 1644 who proposed a rationalist system of theology that was designed to be as free from error as possible. What it produced was a system of theology that was so sterile, so stripped down of poetry, narrative and song that it eventually, after running its race, withered on the vine.

Such rationalist schemes lead only to totalitarianism similar to the political correctness that is now just losing its grip on us. Its appeal to universal reason is a smoke screen that hides its deficiency. Human longing and welfare cannot be reduced to the rationality of the empirical scientist which is deficient because it cannot take into account the very things that make us human. Without a transcendent horizon this kind of rationality, when applied to the human, results in a horror, the sort of thing we saw in the French revolution, in the many brands of Communism and Fascism, all rational movements.

This is not to say that I applaud irrationalism, but a different kind of reason. The author should read Macintyre’s “Whose Justice, Which Rationality”.

I also object to the nasty little slurs on anything to do with religion, practitioners are all sexual deviants and their education is always indoctrination. The author would do better to more carefully research his material and form his argument.

Peter Sellick
Posted by Sells, Friday, 11 July 2008 10:26:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just what we need. Someone who does not believe in absolutes dumping his absolutes in the name of science on us. What a load of crap!

John writes 'As a society we need to do all we can to improve the development of ethics in our children and choose honest and the easiest ways to do so. We need to ensure just teachers, and teaching practices with no indoctrination, and just rules and just coaches and referees in sport.'

'teaching with no indoctrination' John's indoctrination of secularism and evolution disqualifies him and many others by his own standards. Don't worry John it is not just you with the corrupt nature but all of us. Man has failed time and time again at trying to make up his own rules.
Posted by runner, Friday, 11 July 2008 11:42:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Culture, in many instances, is rather a crude system to bestow unmerited privileges to ‘elders’, or other such privileged individuals in a society, and an excuse for otherwise unacceptable behaviour.
So ‘morals’ derived from culture is not a distillation of some universal wisdom by any measure!
And yes, the judgement of ethics is an innate quality to all, and so is a universal property that is an inalienable part of mind.

Just teach children the true foundations and concept of Karma, and a better understanding of action and reaction will automatically ensue.
Karma is not some fanciful belief system, but has a well grounded foundation in physics.
Just as the ordinary brain-based, conscious mind arises as function of quantum coherence in micro tubules, karma is a function of a quantum mechanical nature.
As is all of what we see, feel, experience and enact.
Consciousness, thought, experience, matter, the universe; it’s Mind.

Once this is understood, and the consequences of ‘actions = karmic results’ are part of one’s makeup, the guiding principle for one’s actions are of a truly universal, holistic nature.

For ignorance (of this) is the source of all suffering.
Let humanity arise from ignorance.
Posted by cardano, Friday, 11 July 2008 1:08:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner: "Someone who does not believe in absolutes dumping his absolutes in the name of science on us."

Ye gods runner! I was just going to say a similar thing, but not in response to the article. I read a small amount of it, and realised it was the opposing view to the one presented in GP's article "If you can get away with it, just do it" and so went to see what comments had been posted. My thought at the time was the best that could be said for it was that SusanP was doing a goob job of keeping everything balanced. And in the comments I find :

GP: "science can tell us nothing about is how things ought to be."

Yet as you say, runner, John Turner is indeed telling us how things ought to be - but from my side of the fence this time. He has attempted to disguise it in a "we will take over the world argument", but nonetheless that is what he is doing. I don't have much time for the "ought to be" argument nor do I believe "science reasoning will replace religion" in any future I can foresee.

So GP, you are indeed being told how things ought to be. Your "ought" is a bit different to Turner's methinks. Actually you ought is a bit different from most of the world's, given most of the world doesn't believe in your version of Christianity. Turner's "ought" will probably appeal to a greater audience, since its based on this we can all agree on - things we perceive and things we can deduce from that. But I repeat myself.

In any case, he has about as much chance of converting you as you did of converting the rest of us in your article. I appreciate being informed of where you are coming from, but beyond that its all a bit pointless, really. Hence by "the best that could be said for it" comment above. It applied to your article as well, of course.
Posted by rstuart, Friday, 11 July 2008 1:27:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The distinction between morals and ethics is an important distinction - ethics are the fundamental rules that (or should) govern human and environmental interaction, whilst morals are codes of social behaviour that within the general framework of ethics provide the lubrication as it were between individuals within groups that face different survival needs.
John's point that science, albeit slowly, takes us towards rational ethical behaviour is also well made, although lost on the likes of Sells and Runner - now as always. Constant revelations via the scientific method of the wonders of existential workings is revealing the true structure of the universal environment - a structure marvellous beyond the childish and purile imaginings of the writers of the various revelatory texts, and indeed their followers. It is that scientific (ie rational, testable and capable of being observed) revelation that in turn allows us to develop knowledge and understanding of our own very nature, and to know what of that nature to reject and what to embrace. We are neither all good or all bad.
Such an understanding is, I contend, the fundamental starting point for development of a eternally defensible universal ethic. From such a basis we can then develop a 'moral' basis approriate to individual prevailing circumstances.
Posted by GYM-FISH, Friday, 11 July 2008 2:08:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You lost me with the third sentence:

"In contrast properly performed male circumcision in childhood or adulthood has now been proved to have many substantial health benefits for both males and any future partners."

This is absolute rubbish. No matter how much Jews and other circumcised religious groups would like to believe that there are some genuine health benefits to circumcision, objective health studies show this is not the case. (The Royal Australasian College of Physicians states that "there is no medical indication for routine neonatal circumcision".) Add in the risks of mutilation or even death due to a bungled procedure -- see for instance http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3069491.stm -- and it becomes clear that only a deluded person would inflict this painful and unnecessary procedure on themselves or their child.

The rest of the article -- couldn't be bothered, sorry
Posted by Jon J, Friday, 11 July 2008 2:56:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GP,
I think you have missed the authors point. My interpretaion is that the author is suggesting that scientific discoveries in many fields are forcing us to use out rational thinking ability to overcome our sometimes ridiculous instinctual reactions to evidence that is not as expected and thereby forcing sapien beings to develop well reasoned ethics for the new situations. Isn't that the point of his argument about competent male circumcision? Justice demands the protection of future partners!
Posted by Foyle, Friday, 11 July 2008 3:35:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JonJ
Your comment came up only afer I had posted my recent comment.
On circumcision I will quote two recent opinions which I recently read. The first is from a comment in the most recent 'The Skeptic' by Professor Brian Morris of the School of Medical Sciences, U. of Sydney and reads that, "Uninformed opinions - in contradiction to the clear scientific evidence concerning the many lifelong health benefits of this simple safe proceedure - should be treated with the utmost scepticism."
The second opinion is from Asst Professor Guy Cox, Electro Microscope Unit, U. of Sydney who states that, "There is no doubt that from a strictly medical basis circumcision is hugely beneficial." He also added, "sex is better."
You were wrong on that matter so maybe you would have learnt something had you continued to read.
Posted by Foyle, Friday, 11 July 2008 4:06:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a prat this author seems to be. I don't give a rats arse about religious absolutes, but his 'absolutes' are no reason to claim all god-botherers as 'diddling little boys'. Perhaps he want to diddle them himself, and is projecting his twisted desires on others?

That first claim is clear evidence that the article is not a serious attempt to find moral grounding, but an excuse to bash people he despises, probably without even knowing them.
Posted by ChrisPer, Friday, 11 July 2008 6:28:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As happens sometimes around here, the tag line for this article (“How often has religion supported war and failed to condemn injustice such as abject poverty?”) seems to have drifted away from the content a little.

It’s a pretty insurmountable challenge, sorting out the difference between morals and ethics in 1200 words, and Turner hasn’t really gone beyond providing us with some nice quotes about the human condition.

I would take issue with the view that “Modern science is leading humanity (albeit very slowly) towards a charter for rational, logical moral and ethical behaviour.” Scientific investigation is providing us with data upon which we can make rational judgements, and revealing that many of our traditional views are ill-founded. However science is just that: science – a system of rigorous and testable investigation. Far from leading the armies, science is simply loading the muskets being fired on irrational systems of belief. It’s our own in-built need for consistency and fairness that is leading us towards rational ethical behaviour. A long, but very readable article in the New York Times recently summarised current thinking in this direction: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html

Most importantly, however ...
“Ethics is not science. Social and natural science can provide important data to help us make better ethical choices. But science alone does not tell us what we ought to do. Science may provide an explanation for what humans are like. But ethics provides reasons for how humans ought to act. And just because something is scientifically or technologically possible, it may not be ethical to do it.”
http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/decision/framework.html

The source of the above quote, A Framework for Ethical Decision Making, is an excellent rubric for resolving ethical issues, minimising the role of belief in ethical determinations – always a good thing.

Foyle, not much of a believer in coincidence myself, did you notice Turner’s use of a quote you yourself have been using? http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7582#117671

Oh, and Sells, indoctrination is “teaching someone to accept doctrines uncritically.” http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=indoctrination Sounds like a very good description of religious instruction to me, and most definitely not a slur.
Posted by jpw2040, Friday, 11 July 2008 6:48:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not sure at all that we have lost our moral compass. We hear a lot of static, that's all. It isn't necessary to be a practising Christian - or an adherent to any other religion - to work by the simple rule outlined in the Ten Commandments: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

In other words, in all circumstances, apply the simple test of putting yourself in the shoes of the other person. I think most people do this; there is an innate sense of justice present in the human psyche.

Science provides empirical fact (well, sometimes!). Religion operates, as for example Karen Armstrong so powerfully argues, in the 'parallel universe' of faith-based myth and custom.

Our real test as a society is to sort the wheat from the chaff in public debate. Now there's a challenge.
Posted by Scribe, Friday, 11 July 2008 7:23:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To think on:

1. Exactly how physical science can ever come up with a value, as if a value were like a mechanism for cellular reproduction

Look, evolutionary psychology can come up with interesting explanations about the development of our instincts/emotions but nothing about which emotion/instinct to follow – only moral reasoning can. When two instincts compete which one should we follow? Only religion and philosophy can answer.

2. The Catholic Church to take one example has very detailed and highly nuanced responses to all of these topical moral issues, with basically all of the wealth of our religious and philosophical tradition to draw from. What ought you do about that? Have a think.

3. Yeah try actually defining your terms. That would be nice. I’m inclined after reading this essay to think that I need no morals and that stealing your car doesn’t matter.
4. How it is that hypocritical political and religious leaders find moral crusades effective at all if duties to each other and to God didn’t actually exist, at least for their constituency. Because the love of God and neighbour holds no meaning for a person in power says nothing about their truth. Read about effective moral crusades that John Ralston Saul conveniently overlooks, how about the latest one in Uganda.

5. Provide one example of a school classroom in the developed world that for science lessons, reads the Bible. Just one that’s all.

6. Read anything from even the most minor of New Testament scholars about that statement of Jesus. Have you read the Gospels? A simple google search would have helped here.

7. Lastly, secular humanists like to think they hold a neutral default world view. But have a think about the unprovable (in the scientific sense) doctrines it rests on. So you would simply exchange one indoctrination, the right and healthy one, for a silly secularist experiment.

8.The suggestion that philosophy is taught to primary schoolers is a great idea, the quality of this article is the best argument for it I’ve read.

9. What are OLO editors doing??
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Saturday, 12 July 2008 11:01:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'll have a shot at answering some questions Martin, & a couple of comments along the way.

1. I'm unconvinced science can lead humanity towards a charter for moral behaviour. Perhaps the author was thinking science helps lead us away from immoral behaviour encouraged by some faiths (female genital mutilation, opposition to birth control in overpopulated nations, opposition to certain medical procedures). Which is wishful
thinking. The enlightenment was several hundred years ago yet over half of Americans believe in creationism.

2. the Catholic church often comes across as reactionary & fearul of losing influence. Where in the scriptures does it say stem cell research is sinful? 'Higly nuanced' ? More 'on the fly'.

4. Leaders of all stripes need a cause. Love of god doesn't come into it. The most effective leaders are those who lead by example rather than by sermonising.

5. There are none, though I didn't gather the author claimed there were. Some secondary education authorities in the states find they have to fight (still!) to have creationism kept out of the science curriculum.

7.What can faith prove using first principles? If you believe a first principle is merely a "position" or a "policy" then I'm afraid science is not for you. Incidentally can you give an example of an unprovable scientific doctrine? And do you know what constitutes scientific proof?
Posted by bennie, Saturday, 12 July 2008 6:16:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One can write ether a plot and commentary on Romeo and Juliet in 1200 words or a thesis on the same subject. I commend John for such a credible effort given the space available to him. Especially since eminent thinkers since before Plato have written tomes on the subject.

GP’s response is time based and centred on current circumstances (levels of science and self awareness i.e. Would he be so inclined to poison his unfortunate Granny if he knew that due to science that he COULDN’T get away with it? His choice to proceed would then have nothing to do with ethics rather his capricious denial of consequential reality. John didn’t say it would lay down concrete laws but that it would eventually indicate correct behaviour. The very thing that makes us human is at our current level of understanding what we call our freedom of choice. And the emotions that force our actions are neither corralled by morals or ethics.
Before we reach that level of understanding/control we will by all statistics be either extinct or have evolved into some thing different. Remember evolution only guarantees change not direction.

JPW2040’s loading the muskets is likewise myopically phrased” in that among other reasons Christian ‘morals’ Have loaded the muskets given cause/justification for many disasters ranging from the conversion of indigenous cultures to Christianity to genocide.

Morals are human invented grease for intra-culturally specific interchange. And the down side is they are used as both a binding but also grounds for discrimination. In terms of instructions they are learned.

Ethics however can be seen as being independent to cultural idiosyncrasies. i.e. Protect children, treat your neighbour as you wish to be treated. Both survival necessities that are practised by the 1st world citizens as do the ‘primitives’. A universal ‘hard wired’ instruction (truth, fundamental building block).

Following this vein it stands to reason that it is morals that are indoctrinated not ethics. It also makes sense that non doctrinal education is defined as being without (cultural) morals.
Posted by examinator, Saturday, 12 July 2008 6:18:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi John,

Re your circumcision 'authorities' -- one is a professor of molecular medicine and the other, as you point out, is with an Electron Micrososcopy Unit: neither appear to have any special qualifications in urinogenital medicine or social epidemiology that would stand up against the entire Royal Australasian College of Physicians. But in response to your two let me meet your two and raise you two more:

Dr Peter Ball MB,B Chir
John Dalton Bsc,Msc
Prof Liam Donaldson, Chief Medical Officer for England
Paul M. Fleiss, MD, MPH, former assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at the University of Southern California Medical Center.

Merely quoting authorities, however, is useless; your problem is to show why, if circumcision is so beneficial, the rate is dropping rapidly all over the educated and developed world. If this continues then soon cultural circumcision will be confined to small groups of religious fanatics and undeveloped tribespeople. This hardly supports the idea that it has clear health benefits.
Posted by Jon J, Saturday, 12 July 2008 6:39:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Congratulations to John Turner for his comment on morals and ethics. Robert Ardrey wrote vividly on human origins, especially in his book African Genesis, which draws on the work of Australian anthropologist Raymond Dart. As I recall, Ardrey quotes Dart commenting on explanations of human nature: “we have tried everything else—-we may as well try the truth. So Ardrey introduces an account of the human being as the risen ape.
Philosophy for children has demonstrated value and should be widely taught.
Posted by Ralph Toronto, Sunday, 13 July 2008 10:10:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jon J
In an earlier reply I mentioned a contribution by Prof. B J Morris to the winter 2008 edition of The Skeptic. Defending his position against earlier criticism of his views in the magazine Professor Morris wrote, “I maintain an up-to-date internet review on this topic (www.circinfo.net), a website that has grown enormously over the past 15 years, currently citing 660 publications of the extensive research, which on balance points to the considerable benefits of circumcision. It represents the most extensive review on circumcision in the world. As well, I give invited seminars on circumcision to medical audiences, and was invited to chair the circumcision session at the 4th International AIDS Society Conference in 2007.
I have provided invited input to medical bodies, including the World Health Organization and UNAIDS pertaining to the writing of documentation to assist the roll-out of male circumcision for prevention of HIV/AIDS that is now endorsed by these bodies”.
I suggest you have a look at the information at the website www.circinfo.net
Every prospective parent could benefit any male offspring and their future partners by this simple childhood operation which also reduces the lifetime risk of urinary tract infections in the male by a factor of about six for example and virtually eliminates penile cancer.
Posted by Foyle, Sunday, 13 July 2008 2:37:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As an atheist I am not sure I agree with the author's premise that science can provide a moral framework or a set of values in it's entirety. Do we all believe that human society faces only two choices - science or religion? We are more complex than that.

I guess if one is looking at evolutionary survival of the human species, it makes good biological sense to provide a set of values and rules to protect the group or collective ie. by making the experience of human life safer and satisfying we protect the viability of our species.

Perhaps in more primitive times, the different religions and tribal traditions were borne of this need. Whether this was unconscious or conscious 'social engineering' I cannot say.

As far as exploitation, the problem will always be with human nature whether this moral code or system be 'supernaturally' based or otherwise. Even in a non-religious setting a few in positions of authority and trust might be tempted to exploit that power in reference to the author's point about 'diddling boys'.

The problem with large unwieldy organisations like the Catholic Church, is they might attract some with a 'immoral' agenda and the perpetuation of that behaviour builds or is reinforced by a culture of cover-up and protectionism.

Most reasonable people don't make the giant leap that all priests or Christians are paedophiles.

It boils down to one question really. Can humans construct an ethical or moral code of behaviour without the need for observance of a higher power?

My belief is yes we can, altruism is not only the domain of the religious. Humans in the main, wish for a harmonius and fair society in which we feel safe. It goes against our biology not to.

This does not mean we are perfect and that there are not aberrations to this universal 'desire' but we are imperfect and have been such with and without Christianity (or Islam, Buddhism, etal).
Posted by pelican, Sunday, 13 July 2008 3:21:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To pelican's question "Can humans construct an ethical or moral code of behaviour without the need for observance of a higher power?" the answer is, yes, we already have.

Peter Singer and Marc Hauser put the same three moral dilemmas to people all around the world, and there was over 90% agreement on the answers, regardless of religious affiliation:

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/hausersinger1

Steven Pinker argues in the New York Times article I cited above that just as we are hard-wired with an instinct for language and social organisation, we're also equipped with a moral instinct that has absolutely nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with survival and replication.

Teaching kids ethics in school? Yeah, sure. But don't forget that they are already equipped with an ethical compass which just needs to be calibrated.
Posted by jpw2040, Sunday, 13 July 2008 4:04:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bennie,

1. You dangerously conflate Islam and Judeo-Christian religion. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/JC11Ak04.html

2. Where does Darwin talk about it? Learn what Scripture is, it is the rock from which we are hewn. The Church supports stem cell research, not creation and destruction of human embryos for it. Scientists have recently shown use of somatic stem cells superior in every way to embryonic ones. Embryonic stem cell research is being abandoned by leading labs.

4. Christ teaches to judge by what people do not solely by what they say. Love of and or obedience to God is the stuff that moves history and all peoples. Turn off the TV and read what is happening in the world.

5. 1600 years ago St Augustine was clear ‘if what we read in Scripture contradicts science and reason then our understanding of Scripture is faulty’. If we would learn about the thing we criticise there would be less bigoted theists and atheists. Creationism is as silly as the new atheist ‘all religion is evil’.

7 I’m a trained scientist. You seem confused about doctrine. As a secular humanist you accept on faith some or all of:

-the universe caused itself ie it existed before it existed, or it is uncaused!
-matter is all there is!
-the only valid knowledge is the positivistic scientific kind
-free will is an illusion, objective right and wrong is an illusion

One doctrine of scientific investigation is: the universe is rational and intelligible all the way down and will go on being so.

Scientific proof is shareable knowledge demonstrable by repeated testing. Can’t do science on humans or even the entire universe – singular as they are.

What can faith prove? Friendship trusts on a reasonable probability. We don’t wait for legal or scientific assurance of loyalty. Faith is not legal or physical proof – it is the stuff of the most precious things in life. God asks for trust based on reasonable evidence – prepare to hear his voice, go and have a look at the evidence, turn away from fear and selfishness and go and follow him.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Monday, 14 July 2008 2:15:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jpw2040, You miss the point: The Bible is explicit, God has written His name on our hearts, we have been made in His image and likeness. Therefore, of course we are able to recognize goodness when we experience it. Of course Morality is objective – universal – binding on everyone at all times and within all cultures. Children know this.

The point is: objective morality and our common sense understanding of it logically entails the existence of God, that is, objective morality is grounded in God. Without God objective values are just free floating in some Platonic sense, with (like the instincts alone) nothing to help decide between them – between greed and charity, lust and justice etc.

The point isn’t whether a person can be good without explicit knowledge of God, but that the very existence of values themselves is proof of God’s existence, the being to whom we ultimately have duties toward, and have duties towards others because of.

Apart from this logical problem there are practical problems with this project of faithless morality. The Framers of the American Constitution, for example, doubted an entirely secularist order. For example:

The inspiration: of why do the right

the content: of what you think is right

and the sanction: of what happens to you if you do not do the right.

are most firmly rooted in faith.

If we are really interested in virtuous people think on the above list.

Some famous atheists were very ethical people, often profoundly melancholy too. But for our purposes it is a silly and dangerous experiment and doomed to failure.

A path has been explicitly laid for us to follow, the path of holiness, it’s a narrow one but why live a lie chasing after these chimera?

I’m increasingly staggered at the lengths to which we’ll go to reject God – we do it within history and we do it everyday ourselves just to rub salt into His wounds.

[As for Pinker I'll leave you to read Leon Kass' recent slapdown of him and his stupid ideas ]
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Monday, 14 July 2008 10:27:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You make a great point
we are being decieved
my internet is 'DOWN'
[i cant connect to any site except this one ][for some reason]
email isnt working and NO OTHER SITE WILL CONNECT

so this must be important info to get out there
try this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykGZ2tRY4kY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-ulOvJl46U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqBWk9YRu7c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czZ9kn70Y7I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu8LaVH-pn0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6YYUOx6fBU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxZR4C9gqOY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgrDdJotz0A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU8PId_6xec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8stApCmxYEM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHh5AqQ4_xw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-Lnhs7caCo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-O7WNvKSvY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrMcBHGMZzc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCjM-ZOqQF0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTr3ZgKwsiU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXv6sO52xFY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAiTv0IpHWo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0FhADUZjx4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLev-ijMLME

as to how try this as to why they are being kept from our kids

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21D3ATgMHuE
http://www.youtube.com/watchv=zp_XHfylwPU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4RZqQujqDQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YnnTzyidNI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGhPgEDcKXI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v76amxA9x1cA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6uTy9Uq0K0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSBxEZoNfQo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq_APNsERXY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLqw59XfG04
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRLR7-jdF3M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14yDP0GKrUA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muQRIUVd6Aw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Kp24ZeHtv4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_MHVw1Zz-I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLzUNDaF00U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9MQ88NEO7Q

well
we could nationalise 'big oil [and big pharma
to free up our childrens minds
[then join the suppressed research to gether [AND HEAL THE WORLD}

but we wont [cause we cant]
because we arnt allowed to see the big picture
[because of privatised proffit's]

we are spending billions subsidising these multinationals with our taxes [every week ]

billions spent pills and potions that dont cure us
clearly big BUISNESS lobby is paid to stay on top of this info
to ridicule it where they can
or suppress it where they cant

but for the alternative of [free] energy
that is based on science

that your regular scientists are forbidden to explore
that of which you speak is thus unspeakable
so

[why are they controlled and owned by the same cartel's"]

[and are making us sicker ,by treating the symptom
[BUT NEVER actually even allowed to cure THE DISEASE]
why
because they have an active lobby
have bought out govt
govt must be in on this treason
this 83 TRILLION dollar global TAX
is a lie
we HAVE free ENERGY
right here right NOW
why arnt we allowed to use it
why is my internet disabled?
how can this be posted
when my internet cant acces my server
NO OTHER SITE WORKS
only this one?
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 9:55:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
jpw I tend to agree with you.

I particularly liked this: "But don't forget that they are already equipped with an ethical compass which just needs to be calibrated."

Humans are born with a natural instinct for survival and developing a code of ethics fits very naturally into this concept.

Civilised societies are already evolving away from religion and the future will inevitably become more 'honest' transparent in it's treatment of ethics ie. without the need to defer to a supernatural supreme being or deity.

The only impediment to this might be a massive disaster where nations end up in a global war for food and other resources (for example). We can only hope that a natural sense of altruism will ensure a fairer distribution of resources at some time in the future. It may not happen while the most greediest of our system have the most power but it is certainly achievable.
Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 1:52:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
jpw2040 – you cite a study that indicates that most people agree on some moral issues. So what does that prove? Are you saying that simply having a majority opinion makes something “right”? If so, what proof do you have that that is correct?

What do you say to a fellow atheist that holds a minority ethical position? Do you regard them as sick or ethically twisted? Are you saying that an atheist who just eats, drinks and is merry without a thought for his/her survival or replication or the survival and replication of anyone else is acting “immorally”?

You say that “we're also equipped with a moral instinct that has . . . everything to do with survival and replication.” On what do you base the notion that survival and replication are moral virtues? You just made that up didn’t you? Why should anyone care what your moral pronouncements are? Or are you some sort of secular pope?

No jpw2040 – in a godless universe it is every man/woman for himself when it comes to morality.
Posted by GP, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 5:53:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[As for Pinker I'll leave you to read Leon Kass' recent slapdown of him and his stupid ideas ]

As for Ibn Warriq, I'll leave you to read John Ness' recent slapdown of his stupid ideas:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7574
Posted by jpw2040, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 7:37:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy