agnosticator Posted August 4, 2011 Posted August 4, 2011 It is not by works that the Bible tells us we are saved, but by trusting in Jesus and the work he completed on the cross. If our beliefs determine our worth rather than our behavior, then something is very wrong. Good and bad behaviors are described in the Bible and there is no grounding for objective morality apart from the existence of God, so to discuss good and bad behavior apart from God's existence is simply to discuss opinions, not fact. How is it mere opinion when many non-human sentient beings experience emotions like anger, disgust, fear, joy, sadness, and surprise. They also cooperate and possess a sense of guilt, fairness and empathy. Without emotions such as guilt, empathy, and compassion, there is no morality. Humans feel pain and pleasure, and die. We share a natural aversion to torture and murder, which is innate. Brain damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex affects the feeling of empathy: articleMorality - it's in your mind, next to emotions A new study is digging deeper into the links between emotions and morality, essentiality the ability to judge if a situation is right or wrong. A team of neuroscientists from Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and the University of Southern California (USC) published their recent findings in Neuron, a neuroscience journal, on March 25. The researchers conducted the study with a group of nine individuals that had brain damage to their ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPC), the portion of the brain found to regulate emotions. Patients who have experienced brain trauma due to tumors or aneurisms do not have the ability to process "empathy or embarrassment, but they have a perfectly intact capacity for reasoning and other cognitive functions," said Young. Each of the nine participants was given 24 hypothetical scenarios to judge that combined intentional and accidental harms. The results showed, "They can process what people are thinking and their intentions, but they just don't respond emotionally to that information," continued Young. "They can read about a murder attempt and judge it as morally permissible because no harm was done." The researchers concluded that moral judgments require both an emotional response and a reasonable "assessment of the intention." ref. These innate feelings that make morality possible are subjective are not opinion, and can only be shared by physical, sentient beings.
LNC Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 I didn't say that, but if the "testimony" we are talking about is eyewitness accounts of events before the age of cameras, film, and other such forms of proof then I say we have every right to be suspicious, especially if its some incredible event that is contrary to what we know to be scientific laws. Please understand that I know film can be faked, so don't bother bringing it up. People tell lies all the time to make themselves the center of attention. Most of our history is based upon eyewitness testimony that occurred before the age of cameras, film, and other forms of technology. Also, the accounts are not claimed to be scientific claims, but supernatural ones, so by definition, they would not fall within our known "scientific laws." But to say that something must adhere to scientific laws is to assume that to fall outside of those laws is "incredible," but then, those are the events being reported and they were credible to the witnesses. No, of course I can't be sure, you Christians are the only ones who are, but I say the odds are against it. Actually, it is not the case that Christians are the only ones sure of absolute truth, it there is no such thing as absolute or objective truth, then our conversation is meaningless as it assumes that we objectively observe the world as it is. That some things are true independent of whether we believe them to be. I admit personal preference. I think you have a flawed understanding of karma but I do not believe this is the place to address it. Karma is the most misunderstood teaching in eastern religion. I will say its a yes, though, to your last question. Karma can be broken at any time. It is not predestination and any given event that happens cannot be said to be traced to a single person's karma. In some sutras, particularly the prajnaparamita, the existence of karma is denied. Overall, I think the Bodhisattva ideal of the Mahayana is the most heroic and highest ideal I can think of. Buddhism, as Christianity, is not one unified whole. No, I personally do not believe the disadvantaged deserve what they get. Wouldn't that be more a Christian idea? I mean, are you into the prosperity gospel where you believe that the poor must somehow either not be Christian or be out of God's will or some such nonsense? I believe that the Bible is the central message of Christianity and therefore, there is a unified whole. The problem is that some people misinterpret it or reinterpret it to their own advantage. Such is the case with the "prosperity" movement. It is not Biblical and even contains many heretical beliefs and practices. I reject it as such. That word "redeem" implies a sacrifice to me, or some kind of monetary exchange. To me, its a rather senseless term when applied to life. If you can cultivate some dispassion, learn to train your mind through meditation from clinging to thoughts and illusory material things, I think you live a better, less self centered life. The word redeemed is not always associated with a monetary exchange, however, it is associated with a type of exchange. It is just that over the years we have associated it with a monetary exchange. Yet, we also associate it with a person who has been saved from a bad life or experience. A reformed alcoholic is said to have redeemed his or her life. Or someone who has made amends for a bad life or action is said to have redeemed himself. There is no monetary exchange that has occurred. Do you believe that all material things should be considered illusory? Is that not the epitome of selfishness? I agree that we should hold lightly to the things of this world, but I think if is wrong to consider them illusory. I have a wife and two kids who need my love and care, I will not consider them to be illusory even though they are embodied in material flesh. LNC
LNC Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 A Christian woman told me one time that sin was anything which disrupted community. I can't buy that. Sometimes entire communities are grossly mistaken. Imagine a Lemming telling the others that if they continue to run in their current direction they will all be killed. "Heresy!" "Sin!" I don't think that is an accurate or complete definition of sin either. LNC
LNC Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 I said "if moral strength of character is in our nature" because you said "man was created good", so it is in our nature. Unless you mean it was removed supernaturally? I did some reading, and found I was wrong. Humans are NOT born amoral, but morality is innate just as it is in other animals. See here. OK, with that clarification, I would agree with you, however, I would qualify it by saying that the Fall has corrupted our moral strength of character so that we also possess a rebelliousness in our characters. That too is evidenced even in small children. I would also agree with you that we are born with moral natures, however, I would dispute the idea that animals have such moral natures, I believe that we simply ascribe this type of behavior to them. Scientists are observing otherwise: In one experiment babies between six and ten months old were repeatedly shown a puppet show featuring wooden shapes with eyes. A red ball attempts to climb a hill and is aided at times by a yellow triangle that helps it up the hill by getting behind it and pushing. At other times the red ball is forced back down the hill by a blue square. After watching the puppet show at least six times the babies were asked to choose a character. An overwhelming majority (over 80%) chose the helpful figure. Prof. Bloom said it was not a subtle statistical trend as “just about all the babies reached for the good guy.” In another experiment the babies were shown a toy dog puppet attempting to open a box, with a friendly teddy bear helping the dog, and an unfriendly teddy thwarting his efforts by sitting on him. After watching at least half a dozen times the babies were given the opportunity to choose one of the teddy bears. The majority chose the helpful teddy. A third experiment used a puppet cat playing with a ball with a helpful rabbit puppet on one side and an unhelpful rabbit on the other. The helpful rabbit returned the ball if the cat lost it, while the unhelpful rabbit stole the ball and ran off with it. In this test five-month-old babies were allowed to choose one of the rabbits, and most chose the helpful one. When the test was repeated with 21-month-old babies they were asked to take a treat from one of the rabbits. Most took the treat from the unhelpful rabbit, and one even gave the rabbit a smack on the head as well. Lead author of the study, Kiley Hamlin, said people worry a lot about teaching children the difference between good guys and bad guys but “this might be something that infants come to the world with.” Other psychologists have cautioned that adult assumptions can affect how babies’ reactions are interpreted, and that babies begin to learn from the moment they are born. It seems that the study confirms what I was saying and that the author tossed in a throwaway statement at the end as a counterpoint. If this was the case, why not quote the psychologists and their supporting evidence? I'm not saying that there are not psychologists who don't hold this view, but the study you cite doesn't support your view, only the last unsupported line at the end. Gen 3:22 "And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil." They obeyed blindly. They couldn't have known what "good" was. They couldn't make a logical connection to "good", unless you equate "good" with obedience alone. To do what you are told is much different than making a moral decision. How can a person know that pleasing another is "good", when that person is a possession of the other and is limited to two choices; obey or suffer? That's extortion. What do you mean, "they obeyed blindly"? Do you mean that they didn't know what they were supposed to do or why they were supposed to do it or why it was right to follow God's instructions? They did know what they were supposed to do (Gen. 2:15-17), and why they were supposed to do it (Gen. 2:17), and why it was right to follow God's instructions (Gen. 1:26-31) Why could not moral good be equated with obedience? I don't see why that disqualifies them from knowing good, even if that is all they knew. To do what you are told and to not do what you are told not to do is a moral decision. They had both instructions and either one on its own would also qualify as a moral decision. I'm not sure how you say it cannot be. Would you say that our legal system is a system of extortion? When we disobey the law we are subject to punishment, so by your reckoning, we are merely part of a huge extortion racket. I don't think that is true and I doubt you do either. Rules without some consequence for breaking them are empty rules that will be broken. My children, who are my legal possession, know that obeying the rules is right and disobeying is wrong - that has nothing to do with making a moral choice either. LNC
Deva Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 Most of our history is based upon eyewitness testimony that occurred before the age of cameras, film, and other forms of technology. Also, the accounts are not claimed to be scientific claims, but supernatural ones, so by definition, they would not fall within our known "scientific laws." But to say that something must adhere to scientific laws is to assume that to fall outside of those laws is "incredible," but then, those are the events being reported and they were credible to the witnesses. I concede they might have been credible to the witnesses. It may be beyond the realm of present day scientific knowledge but there is no way I should be expected to believe it. It becomes a matter of faith. Actually, it is not the case that Christians are the only ones sure of absolute truth, it there is no such thing as absolute or objective truth, then our conversation is meaningless as it assumes that we objectively observe the world as it is. That some things are true independent of whether we believe them to be. I am inclined to agree our conversation, and most conversation in general, is meaningless. I think you meant to say "it assumes that we subjectively observe the world as it is." I don't believe we objectively observe the "world as it is" whatever that means. I believe that the Bible is the central message of Christianity and therefore, there is a unified whole. I don't, because there are thousands of different churches. That shows this problem goes way beyond the problem of interpretation and points to general and obvious inconsistencies. The whole problem is its based on a bunch of different books that were stuck together and supposed to be a coherent whole, which it plainly isn't. I wish Christians would simply acknowledge the fact. They can't even agree on such important matters as what it takes to be "saved" - a bogus concept anyway. A reformed alcoholic is said to have redeemed his or her life. Or someone who has made amends for a bad life or action is said to have redeemed himself. There is no monetary exchange that has occurred. Granted, but that isn't exactly the usage of the word as we are discussing it. We are talking about the ridiculous idea of God redeeming his own creation. Also, one does not commonly see this word used a lot outside of Christian circles. Do you believe that all material things should be considered illusory? Is that not the epitome of selfishness? I agree that we should hold lightly to the things of this world, but I think if is wrong to consider them illusory. I have a wife and two kids who need my love and care, I will not consider them to be illusory even though they are embodied in material flesh. Why is this view selfish? Wouldn't it also mean you yourself are illusory? They are plainly illusory in the sense that they are all here today and may be gone tomorrow or in the next second.
chosendarkness Posted August 19, 2011 Posted August 19, 2011 It is not by works that the Bible tells us we are saved, but by trusting in Jesus and the work he completed on the cross. If our beliefs determine our worth rather than our behavior, then something is very wrong. VERY wrong indeed. Christians believe they have the only truth that applies to everyone, and if you don't believe like they do then at the very least, you're doing something wrong or are 'mislead'. That is not moral, it's bigotry and intolerance. They talk about morality like they're experts, but they purposefully deny this moral contradiction, and when you break it down they're just asses that think they know better than everyone else. They like to pretend they understand the basis of morality, but their basis is a God that murders anyone who doesn't believe in him. It's sick, twisted, and is the very opposite of moral. 1
agnosticator Posted August 20, 2011 Posted August 20, 2011 however, I would dispute the idea that animals have such moral natures, I believe that we simply ascribe this type of behavior to them. I disagree, due to my own observations and observations within research: ref. Humans are morally considerable because of the distinctively human capacities we possess, capacities that only we humans have.But which capacities mark out all and only humans as the kinds of beings that can be wronged? A number of candidate capacities have been proposed—developing family ties, solving social problems, expressing emotions, starting wars, having sex for pleasure, using language, or thinking abstractly, are just a few. As it turns out, none of these activities is uncontroversially unique to human. Both scholarly and popular work on animal behavior suggests that many of the activities that are thought to be distinct to humans occurs in non-humans. For example, many species of non-humans develop long lasting kinship ties—orangutan mothers stay with their young for eight to ten years and while they eventually part company, they continue to maintain their relationships. Less solitary animals, such as chimpanzees, baboons, wolves, and elephants maintain extended family units built upon complex individual relationships, for long periods of time. Meerkats in the Kalahari desert are known to sacrifice their own safety by staying with sick or injured family members so that the fatally ill will not die alone. All animals living in socially complex groups must solve various problems that inevitably arise in such groups. Canids and primates are particularly adept at it, yet even chickens and horses are known to recognize large numbers of individuals in their social hierarchies and to maneuver within them. One of the ways that non-human animals negotiate their social environments is by being particularly attentive to the emotional states of others around them. When a conspecific is angry, it is a good idea to get out of his way. Animals that develop life-long bonds are known to suffer terribly from the death of their partners. Some are even said to die of sorrow. Darwin reported this in The Descent of Man: “So intense is the grief of female monkeys for the loss of their young, that it invariably caused the death of certain kinds.” Jane Goodall's report of the death of the healthy 8 year old chimpanzee Flint just three weeks after the death of his mother Flo also suggests that sorrow can have a devastating effect on non-human animals. (see Goodall 2000, p. 140-141 in Bekoff 2000). Coyotes, elephants and killer whales are also among the species for which profound effects of grief have been reported (Bekoff 2000) and many dog owners can provide similar accounts. While the lives of many, perhaps most, non-humans in the wild are consumed with struggle for survival, aggression and battle, there are some non-humans whose lives are characterized by expressions of joy, playfulness, and a great deal of sex (Woods, 2010). Recent studies in cognitive ethology have suggested that some non-humans engage in manipulative and deceptive activity, can construct “cognitive maps” for navigation, and some non-humans appear to understand symbolic representation and are able to use language.[1] It appears then that most of the capacities that are thought to distinguish humans as morally considerable beings, have been observed, often in less elaborate form, in the non-human world. but the study you cite doesn't support your view, only the last unsupported line at the end. Actually, my view is that our nature is the product of both "nature" and "nurture", and we are both good and "evil". What do you mean, "they obeyed blindly"? Do you mean that they didn't know what they were supposed to do or why they were supposed to do it or why it was right to follow God's instructions? They didn't know what "good" or "evil" meant. How could they know this without eating the fruit? Why could not moral good be equated with obedience? I don't see why that disqualifies them from knowing good, even if that is all they knew. To do what you are told and to not do what you are told not to do is a moral decision. God basically said, "don't do this or this will happen". Again, how could they know what good was without eating the fruit? They were given two choices. Morality based on obedience is an immature morality. It's not a sign of maturity when an adult sees what he does as obeying or disobeying an authority, without contemplating the reasons and consequences any decision he may act upon may have. The couple could only wonder what death, good, and evil meant. Would you say that our legal system is a system of extortion? When we disobey the law we are subject to punishment, so by your reckoning, we are merely part of a huge extortion racket. I don't think that is true and I doubt you do either. Rules without some consequence for breaking them are empty rules that will be broken. My children, who are my legal possession, know that obeying the rules is right and disobeying is wrong - that has nothing to do with making a moral choice either. Mature adults agreed to make laws for the good of everyone. Most laws were made to protect innocent people from criminals. If a child unwittingly breaks a law, we don't hold him accountable as an adult because he doesn't know any better. He is morally immature. The biblegod held the immature couple accountable for what they knew little of. If they were morally mature, the tree would be irrelevant. They would already know good from evil.
Recommended Posts