Board index ‹ Morality

[J Lord]

> God is not applying secular morality

Yes, you have said this. But have not provided any reasons in support of this belief.

> If you're trying to figure out where principles of secular morality came from, you only need to look at the person of God and you'll see them there.

This is exactly what we would expect to see if God is using secular morality to determine his moral views.

[jimwalton]

> Yes, you have said this. But have not provided any reasons in support of this belief.

Oh, but I have. Repeatedly. You just keep missing it, ignoring it, or denying it, I can't tell which.

God was first. It's the principle not only of Primacy of Position but also of chronological antecedent. There is no example of God applying secular morality, but only of secular morality and God's goodness in alignment. I said previously that alignment is no surprise, given that morality is based on a standard about which we agree.

All denunciation of behavior on the basis of morals implies a moral doctrine of some kind—a law or standard by which we can reliably define terms such as good or evil, right or wrong. If evil exists, which I think everyone except Hindus would admit, then one must assume good also exists in order to know the difference. If good and evil exist, we must assume a standard exists by which to measure good and evil, or else they are subject to individual whims and therefore without definition and ultimately meaningless. And if such a standard exists, there must be a source of that standard, or at least some kind of objective basis for agreement on the concepts and expression like "human wellbeing." (An objective basis would be something transcendently true, whether I believe it or not, like natural phenomena or science as the study of such phenomena.) And if there is a source of that standard, it must have come from somewhere, and that source must necessarily be personal, moral, and objective. Therefore God—a personal, moral source outside of humanity—plausibly exists and predated secular morality.

In other words, objectivity is processed by the individual, but its source and focus must encompass the big picture we call truth. We are talking the difference between the grand good and the petty preferences. Morality in some sense can operate and live at all levels, but if we want to find the definition of right and wrong, we need to travel back to objectivity and objective morality.

Without the big cheese objective definition—the ideal that hangs out here as a standard and as a definition, both to restrict and to illustrate—the personal preferences are nothing more than tastes, which is no way to motivate a people to morality. Reality stands with truth, and truth with objectivity, and objectivity with standards requiring value judgments of good and bad/right and wrong. Without such objectivity, we are nothing but the reverse of "Animal Farm."

Without God, in a world of blind and impersonal physical forces, some people are going to get hurt just as some will get lucky, some will find wellbeing and others injury, and there is no rhyme or reason to it. No such thing as morality, justice, right and wrong, or injustice. There is no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good. Nothing but blind, pitiless indifference (Richard Dawkins).

A quote from William Provine, a biology professor from Cornell University: "Modern science directly implies that there are no inherent moral or ethical laws, no absolute guiding principles for human society … We must conclude that when we die, we die, and that is the end of us … finally, free will as it is traditionally conceived—the freedom to make un-coerced and unpredictable choices among alternative courses of action—simply does not exist … There is no way that the evolutionary process as currently conceived can produce a being that is truly free to make moral choices." Even giving regard to human wellbeing.

Kai Nielsen, a prolific writer defending atheism, says, "Reason doesn't decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me. Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality." So moral reasoning is only valid if God exists, or any assertion of moral thinking is irrational.

[J Lord]

> All denunciation of behavior on the basis of morals implies a moral doctrine of some kind

Yes, and it seems to me the doctrine is that we judge actions based on how we think they are likely to impact human well being. And you are telling me that if God did base his morality on human well being his laws would be exactly the same as they are now. But for some reason you claim to know that this wasn't what he based his morality on. I think if you can't point to any example where God's law deviates from his concern for human well being, then you have not provided any basis for thinking his law isn't based on human well being.