Another reminder why religion shouldn't make the rules

IvanSong SG

ic... so my question would be disconcerting to you because it proposes a dichotomy.
Wink

Well, i'm a Christian and i take the view that there are absolutes in life. I appreciate that story you raised, having done an ethics module previously and explored such issues.

If i interpret your stand correctly, it is that the ends do justify the means? But my question then is where would you draw the line? Because whatever wrongdoing done toward me is not necessarily considered so in your perspective, so what this guy did (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/08/2084826.htm), he believed he was doing this for the greater good, what would your response be?

In some cultures they love their neighbours, in other cultures, they eat them, both on the basis that what they're doing is justified, practised as part of their culture. How would you respond to that?

frederikan SG

okay, when i raised the issue that a little evil could be done for the greater good, i do not literally mean simply doing an evil thing. there is a utilitarian meaning in it. what i meant was that that "evil deed" to that individual is working against his personal values, not conscience, even though others may think that it is right. because good and evil are subjective, what may seem evil, may not be bad, what may seem good, may not be socially or morally acceptable. there's a huge difference between good and evil, and morality and immorality. however, there are certain things that are amoral or neither good nor evil.

morality is conscience based, while goodness or evilness is perceptual. doing things that work against one's conscience (if he has one) is definitely something which is socially unacceptable. for your example, i would say that eating another individual is amoral, depending on their own cultures. because to me, what seems to be true to one person may not be true to another. similarly, if one finds eating humans a gross and immoral act, an immoral act need not necessarily be eating humans. so, culture and traditions are amoral, but the acts are subjected to be viewed as moral or immoral, rather than good or evil.

well, the bible calls it the law of moses when the ten commandments were written on stone tablets. honestly, those are "laws" that are compiled into a set of moral codes for people to follow, excluding the one on worshipping God and only God alone due to the jealous God that the people are dealing with, are socially acceptable moral values. however, the issue that thou shalt not kill, steal, or lie, still depends on situations and the law of justice in court would eventually decide upon the penalty of such acts. killing is bad, and we all know that, but it could be just someone or anyone putting up a physical defense to prevent himself from being killed or murdered by another psycho nutcase. as a result, if he managed to kill the psychopath in the process of his self-defense, how would God judge this? this is still not up to people to decide but God. but where is God? if the people do not decide upon the action, then what makes one think that God would decide through the scriptures written by men in the bronze ages? surely, it is still men who decide upon the action and act accordingly to the men-written scriptures to pass penalties or judgments, all in the authority of the church.

well, at least to me, the civil or federal law does not allow murder, genocide, or stoning of infidels , homosexuals, adulterers, or simply people who do not have the same faith as you do. unlike the laws that are written in the bible which reflects the ancient times of bigotry, prejudice, and male-chauvinism. just imagine the damage it would cause to the minds of young children being passed a bible of the old testament.

i need not say further, but i leave the decision to those who still want to have faith and believe in something that is potentially harmful.

in sum, where do i draw the line? i follow the laws of the universe as well as the set of laws that governs a country and try to be a good citizen as much as possible. whereas morals are concerned, i develop my own principles and values that i know would not contradict my naturally given conscience, because what contradicts the conscience is definitely a warning sign of an imminent danger ahead.

IvanSong SG

Just curious, what kind of laws of the universe that teach you to be good?

Appreciate your sincere comments ... so you have compartmentalized morality, conscience, good and evil. But i think there is a fluid interaction between these factors that you cannot address one without the other. Could you operationalize these terms further?

If not, about conscience, i believe like you do, that it is inherent and "naturally given" and of course, i would subscribe the giver as God, since we've been made in His image.

From the atheist POV, how would that conscience come about, since we're supposedly animals (or very closely related to them)? It is this conscience which made me ask the question in the 1st place, how do we differentiate good and bad? How do we determine the "ought tos" and the "should nots" in life? Why is there even a conscience in us in the 1st place?

For me, Christianity cannot be defined without the person of Jesus, whom He said he was the way to God, and if you know him, you would know how God is like. As such, I dont think that upon careful study, the bible would make anyone a bigot or male chauvinist. Modern christianity likes to posit the faith as something based upon love, good feelings and subtle humanism, but i take the view that true christianity cannot do without a God who hates sin, and a God who loves. That said, i've read the bible since young, and i don't think i'm "damaged" in any sense. But really, i've seen people who have grown up with the bible and richer because of it, people who have grown up without it and lead great lives too, but i think this issue far transcends our personal experience of it.

Another reason why i asked this was that atheists often suggested that since there was evil in the world, then God cannot exist, because he is supposedly good.

But if good and evil are subjective, then the problem of evil doesnt exist in an atheistic universe. Since everything is relative, there is no God, then there is absolute moral standard and nothing is wrong. The torture of little children is also not wrong, it might be painful, but it is not wrong (or as you mentioned earlier, the eating of human beings is amoral). It is morally wrong in a theistic universe, and therefore, there is a problem of evil of perhaps the psychological or emotional sort, but philosophically, the answer to the problem of evil is you don't have an absolute standard of good by which to measure evil in an atheist's universe. You can only have that in a theistic universe.

Herzog_Zwei SG

Mr Talk Cock and Sing Song Ivan, kindly note that you are purposefully twisting my words: I did not mention anything about keeping a balance between the law and personal moral values.

If someone were to murder my loved ones with good cause, for example, my loved ones are Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein, I might even give him/her a medal.

IvanSong SG

Sadly, the conversation with you has degenerated faster than i expected, such that you're resorting to name calling and mocking surnames.

I really wonder who's doing the twisting here... i said "seem to be suggesting" ... the last time i checked it means that i'm uncertain about your stand and inviting clarification. At which point did I say "you are suggesting", as in the way you have clearly alleged that i am "purposefully twisting" your words.

Civility's not quite your forte isn't it? Doesn't matter, i wont continue a conversation with someone who systematically avoids the question and corrupts attempts at making civil discussion.

You can hang around as a source of humour though.

frederikan SG

i appreciate your opinion and i respect it.

to clarify your first question, yes, the reason why there is a fluid interaction between morality and goodness is because of human perceptions. but if you were to pull them apart and analyse them individually, you'd see the differences like how i've just mentioned.

many christians questioned that since conscience is naturally given, it must be from God. but to me, it is innate and hereditary. moreover, they think that this earth is about 4000 to 6000 years old created by an intelligent designer who scientifically cannot be disproved. and this creates another unsolved problem: who create the designer? well, i remembered Bertrand Russell quoted his famous china teapot example. imagine that there is a theory of a china teapot orbiting around the sun. one cannot disprove of its existence as it cannot be seen by our naked eyes or the current telescope. as we cannot show its evidence nor disprove of its non-existence, it would be absurd to claim that it does exists after all.

furthermore, there are so many gods or deities that many of us do not believe in. some people, including christians do not believe in Zeus or Hercules, therefore, they are Zeus-atheists or Hercules-atheists. many people also do not believe in toothfairies, hence they are toothfairy atheists. we are all atheists in our own ways, but some of us have gone one god further and that is the God Almighty.

in addition, i refuse to come to a stark conclusion that God exists not just simply because i felt his "presence" (not sure if it is just emotions running through me), or read the bible, or been to church, or served in any ministries, once upon a time. i feel that people can do without God and are doing great themselves simply because they lead a good life, they know what their objectives are in life, and they work hard and enjoy themselves. i'm not surprised to see free thinkers striving to make a difference in society for a good cause of course.

atheists are humans too. i feel that it sounds rather like an accusation to call every free thinker an atheist, because we don't need to be labeled like "atheists", because everyone of us have our own way of thinking and living our lives. sure, there are many other atheists who are bad or evil, as well as there are many other christians who are black sheeps. and many of them, i'm not surprised, are fundamentalists who take the bible literally, and start to create trouble. i'm sure u are aware about that. and this is what i'm concerned about, regarding what is written in the bible that cause many primitive people who didn't know any better to commit crimes in the name of God.

however, regarding free thinkers, i'm focusing more towards those who live their lives based upon their own principles and moral values that they learn from their many phases in life, including me. and it's not that i strongly disagree that God exists, because i cannot prove that he doesn't exist, neither will i be able to prove his existence. so, all in all, i'm rather agnostic about this whole issue, but it's not that i dun wanna believe, but rather, i choose to remain skeptical about such phenomena that still remains debatable till this day, due to its lack of evidence. and i refuse to come to a conclusion because this phenomena still remains a mystery... at least, to me.

having said that, i respect your view that humans are created in the image of God. but for me, i believe that we have a common ancestor (thanks to my growing interests in science ever since my entry to a course of my passion), not because we come from apes, but rather, we evolved not from apes, but through stages of genetic and biological improvement of our physical characteristics throughout our history of survival and adaptation. well, evolution does provide a theory of the big bang and the formation of life from the very smallest living organisms, though it is still debatable, it has revolutionalised science and biology altogether and without such theory, or i would say, without science and discovery, we would not have survived till this age of information. all these things that we are doing are part and parcel of our survival and adaptation as living organisms. the only difference between us and the animals is our unique feature, known as the brain. imagine if we take away the brain of a human, he would be very vulnerable to other creatures. firstly, we cannot run as fast as the cheetah, we would be eaten by them. we cannot swim as fast as the whale, we would perish in water if we mess with them. we cannot stand the cold like the polar bears who have thick white fur to keep them warm. as such, our brain helps us adapt to our environment by making weapons to hunt down animals and use their special features as our survival aids. realising that we are vulnerable, humans have evolved such that they began to discover more for themselves in order to survive in this harsh planet.

good and evil are subjective, but like i said, our conscience determines what is moral and immoral, or amoral. i did not say that everything is relative. but rather, my point is that in this world, not everything is pure black and white. there are gray areas too, and as such, this gray area is either amoral or simply are subjected to personal preferences, perceptions, cultures, or opinions.

i understand that religion is a source of guide for people to follow, but if that's the case, then let it be a guide for people to follow... but why God? why in the name of God?

if religion has moral codes for people to learn from or cultivate their own morality, like any other moral philosophies, it is certainly not a problem for me. but what worries me is that if one is told to love by God, then it would be as good as not loving at all, because i don't think that we should be told to love others because God says so, or the holy scripture says so, or the church says so. love should be voluntary just as it is hereditary and not coerced or instructed by God. if one doesn't love another person, that is his problem because he is going to have a hard time getting along. but as one live his life longer enough, he will know that loving others is the key to build relationships. it is this slow and care free process of going through life learning the bitter lessons that makes us stronger as a person, before passing on our lessons learned to others as a form of sharing of experiences, rather than leaning on our faith like a crutch. it still depends on how one sees it still. but this is how i view life.

i appreciate people who share gospels or other religions to me which opens me up to different views or individual beliefs, and it also gives me a chance to know more about different cultures and faiths. i have no problems with that but it would be good if they could just keep their religion to themselves rather than strongly evangelising their faiths, which kind of turns me off sometimes. haha.

Herzog_Zwei SG

The question is not civility but your purposeful effort in misphrasing my statements.

january SG

erh.. Morality is still a ongoing subject if you read philosophy where people discuss what is moral and its various definitions even in modern times.
In my philosophy class last time, my tutor is still debating about various moral issues.

as for your question i would say just follow state law, like no littering and no speeding. The details just think for yourself loh.

« Previous Page