The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-01-2015, 09:24 AM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2015 11:57 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(20-01-2015 07:20 PM)Dahlia Wrote:  Ok, good. So I don't know why it would be difficult to see how "intrinsic moral obligations" could be evolutionary and therefore part of human nature. Unless you are a creationist, in which case this argument is pointless.

No, I'm not a creationist.

But let's think of this for a minute.

Let's just go with this idea as if it were true, and perhaps you might see the problem with it. Would intrinsic moral obligations be something that all animals have, or just humans? Do chimpanzees have intrinsic moral obligations? When they engage in genocidal wars could we say they violated these obligations? Or would such intrinsic obligations be unique to humans?

Or let's try and think of this another way. I don't think it's just coincidental that those who don't believe we have intrinsic obligations tend to be atheists, while those that do, tend to be believers of some sort. Because a belief in them, will likely give one's atheism a considerable pause, and put one's unbelief in a bit of a predicament. It's a concept comfortable for believers to hold, but is an uncomfortable fit for unbelievers.

Imagine if your child's teacher decided to teach the students there are intrinsic moral obligations, that their sense of right and wrong, are all indicators of that law within our hearts, conveying these intrinsic obligations of our very being. A child would likely wonder whose the law giver, that endowed us with these obligations? If he has non-religious parents, he will probably come home with a lot of questions.

And those parents would likely drag this teacher to the courts, and accuse him of violating the Establishment Clause. And I would have to agree with them.

Who gave us intrinsic moral obligations? We could say nature did. But what sort of nature are we being suggestive of, if it's capable of giving us intrinsic moral obligations, rather than ones that gave us a series of sensations, causing pleasure and discomfort? Would we be likely to hold to a view of nature as an unguided process? Or seemingly guided, conscious one, with foresight, and capacities to create with intent, to be able to create within us an intrinsic moral direction, which we are in fact obligated to?

If it were so, mother nature becomes even less of a metaphor, but is now suggestive of possessing the qualities of being.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 10:34 AM (This post was last modified: 21-01-2015 10:56 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 09:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Let's just go with this idea as if it were true, and perhaps you might see the problem with it. Would intrinsic moral obligations be something that all animals have, or just humans? Do chimpanzees have intrinsic moral obligations? When they engage in genocidal wars could we say they violated these obligations? Or would such intrinsic obligations be unique to humans?

Well dear, since you have no clue about anything you PRESUME to spout about, apes DO have morals.
http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index...evolution/
http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_d...anguage=en

(21-01-2015 09:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Or let's try and think of this another way. I don't think it's just coincidental that those who don't believe we have intrinsic obligations tend to be atheists, while those that do, tend to be believers of some sort. Because a belief in them, will likely gives one atheism a considerable pause, and put one's unbelief in a bit of a predicament. It's a concept comfortable for believers to hold, but is an uncomfortable fit for unbelievers.

Lets not. Let's see your peer-reviewed poll. Since you never took even ONE class in Biology or Anthropology, you would have no clue where anything "came from", (except your gawd). Your presupps gives atheism no "pauses" On the other hand, your theism is flat out in asystole. Dead. There is nothing to "fit" anywhere. If something is not understood, then it remains to study it, not insert a deity or religion as the answer. Is your name PleaseJesus ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
21-01-2015, 11:34 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(20-01-2015 11:33 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You are still arguing as if the "eternal moral laws" are real, while simultaneously ignoring the fact that morality is a behavior that humans (and other animals) posses.

No, I have never been arguing that eternal moral laws are real. I’ve consciously avoided doing this, in fact I explicitly stated on several occasions, that for all intended purposes it is better if we assume that they don’t exist, that they are in fact a false belief.

If you think i’ve argued as if they were real, than you misunderstood something that I said, perhaps even drastically so as a result. You would likely have to go back and read what I said, with this in mind, and you’ll likely get a clearer perspective as a result.

Quote:In fact, we know some of the behaviors of the early humans and their reverence for death through the burial of the deceased, which predate religion by millennia.

We see animals behave morally, in fact it is an entire realm of study (altruism) in evolution and biology.

All true, but I’m not sure what you think this means for what I’ve argued so far. But it should be noted that animals don’t just behave morally, they behave all sorts of ways, engage in actions, deemed evil, and immoral if done so by humans.

Nor do other animals have belief systems, that require them to go through a series of justifications, that serve to relegate our impulses to some extent. Beliefs matter to humans, hence why atheists typically argue about the capacities of certain beliefs to lead to destructive behaviors. Beliefs don’t matter to other animals, for whom such things do not exist. There’s no belief to eradicate, or to reeducate a chimpanzee on in order for him to avoid engaging in genocide.

Quote:To put it more simply, what are your intentions with this conversation?

I don’t know, just to argue a perspective, to see what valid criticisms there are to consider, what misunderstandings would I likely need to address. To gauge how strong or weak my perspective is, and to enjoy myself while doing so.

Quote:Do you believe that you are demonstrating evidence for the existence of eternal moral laws?

No, in fact I’m arguing as if the existence or eternal moral laws has been proven false.

Quote:Do you believe that the morals peddled by religion are good?

I don’t think religions peddle morals, but that’s another topic all together.

Quote:(you also largely avoided my point about amorality when it comes to following guidelines you are told are moral without questioning them. One can't be a moral actor by doing what you are told, you are merely following a command under the assumption that it must be moral, this is where I pointed out that this type of thing happens far too often in society, and tends to lead to things like the Holocaust.)

I’m not too sure as to what you mean. I’m familiar with secular moral perspectives that judge morality based on consequences, and the actions themselves, but you seem to be suggesting a standard based on intent, which I’m not familiar with?

If several individuals go out and feed the poor, one based on merely following a religious command to do so, the other doing so because he knows he’ll score brownie points with the girls he’s trying to bed, and another doing so because he’s worried that the poor will go around robbing people if they are not fed, would we say all of these people acted for amoral reasons?

What would the reason have to be for it to be moral?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 11:49 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(21-01-2015 09:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Do chimpanzees have intrinsic moral obligations? When they engage in genocidal wars could we say they violated these obligations? Or would such intrinsic obligations be unique to humans?

Well dear, since you have no clue about anything you PRESUME to spout about, apes DO have morals.

Don't do that.

Don't change intrinsic moral obligations, to just plain morals, as if we're talking about the same thing.

If you don't think apes have intrinsic moral obligations, then I don't even know why you bothered responding with this.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 12:01 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 11:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-01-2015 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Well dear, since you have no clue about anything you PRESUME to spout about, apes DO have morals.

Don't do that.

Don't change intrinsic moral obligations, to just plain morals, as if we're talking about the same thing.

If you don't think apes have intrinsic moral obligations, then I don't even know why you bothered responding with this.

So can you clarify this difference between "intrinsic moral obligations" to "plain morals"?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 12:16 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 09:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Imagine if your child's teacher decided to teach the students there are intrinsic moral obligations, that their sense of right and wrong, are all indicators of that law within our hearts, conveying these intrinsic obligations of our very being. A child would likely wonder whose the law giver, that endowed us with these obligations? If he has non-religious parents, he will probably come home with a lot of questions.

And those parents would likely drag this teacher to the courts, and accuse him of violating the Establishment Clause. And I would have to agree with them.

Who gave us intrinsic moral obligations? We could say nature did. But what sort of nature are we being suggestive of, if it's capable of giving us intrinsic moral obligations, rather than ones that gave us a series of sensations, causing pleasure and discomfort? Would we be likely to hold to a view of nature as an unguided process? Or seemingly guided, conscious one, with foresight, and capacities to create with intent, to be able to create within us an intrinsic moral direction, which we are in fact obligated to?

If it were so, mother nature becomes even less of a metaphor, but is now suggestive of possessing the qualities of being.

You've compared yourself as to having low self control in discussion... while in the past having described yourself by your behavior as a dick.

Again these ideas like.. a child would likely wonder "WHO" the law giver is... this is another one of your strange boxed in assumptions you don't seem to understand or care that you make constantly in your points. It also wouldn't be surprising depending on the age as children in this culture are very frequently ingrained into thinking of the ideas of good/bad as black/white systems from a high grand authority. Because we stupidly tell them that because it seems easier until they become teenagers and that idea blows up.

Even still... how is that actually an establishment clause issue? What is the religious teaching or thoughts that are being presented? If it was a specific science class or science-lecture sure, but if it's a 4th grade general class I disagree. You left it so open though it's not clear on what your thought was on this again.

And your problem is you've still never described why you think moral beliefs in other primates/mammals was incapable of becoming the ideas of moral obligations when humans began to evolve into more complex thinking and socially bonded creatures. Your claim is because it is now these days mostly religious, it had to have been religious first... but it really didn't have to be that way.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 12:19 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 11:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-01-2015 10:34 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Well dear, since you have no clue about anything you PRESUME to spout about, apes DO have morals.

Don't do that.

Don't change intrinsic moral obligations, to just plain morals, as if we're talking about the same thing.

I'l do whatever the fuck I decide to do, pops.
Tell us EXACTLY what the difference is, between "intrinsic moral obligations" and "just plain morals" and REFERENCE your response to at least ONE scholar.


(21-01-2015 11:49 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If you don't think apes have intrinsic moral obligations, then I don't even know why you bothered responding with this.

Yeah. I get it. You wish that no one would point out what garbage you spout.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 01:29 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 12:16 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Even still... how is that actually an establishment clause issue? What is the religious teaching or thoughts that are being presented? If it was a specific science class or science-lecture sure, but if it's a 4th grade general class I disagree. You left it so open though it's not clear on what your thought was on this again.

Well, you seem to think that beliefs that we are designed, beliefs in irreducible complexity are not religious beliefs. In fact the only thing you consider a religious belief, is a belief in God. And while ID supporters would be happy to agree with you, lucky for all us the courts disagreed, and considered it a clear violation of the Establishment Clause.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 01:35 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 01:29 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(21-01-2015 12:16 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Even still... how is that actually an establishment clause issue? What is the religious teaching or thoughts that are being presented? If it was a specific science class or science-lecture sure, but if it's a 4th grade general class I disagree. You left it so open though it's not clear on what your thought was on this again.

Well, you seem to think that beliefs that we are designed, beliefs in irreducible complexity are not religious beliefs. In fact the only thing you consider a religious belief, is a belief in God. And while ID supporters would be happy to agree with you, lucky for all us the courts disagreed, and considered it a clear violation of the Establishment Clause.

Again you show a lack of tact and situation awareness.

Their choices and decisions were perfectly fitting with what I said... when it comes to science classes. Yes it's a violation in that point.

There was also easy to point evidence of letters between the heads of ID.. that it was literally thought up as a attempt to push for creationism. They see that, see direct evidence and can make a obvious claim. ID was clearly a religious claim about a creator/designer, and everyone with functional pattern recognition skills could see that. Because they proclaim their thought is something doesn't make it so if you can prove they are deliberately being disingenuous.

This is in opposition to your pattern of ASSUMING something is true about early human thought process and order of ideas. Despite how the elements of those sociological and philosophical thoughts of mankind are hard to pinpoint.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-01-2015, 02:23 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(21-01-2015 09:24 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-01-2015 07:20 PM)Dahlia Wrote:  Ok, good. So I don't know why it would be difficult to see how "intrinsic moral obligations" could be evolutionary and therefore part of human nature. Unless you are a creationist, in which case this argument is pointless.

No, I'm not a creationist.

But let's think of this for a minute.

Let's just go with this idea as if it were true, and perhaps you might see the problem with it. Would intrinsic moral obligations be something that all animals have, or just humans? Do chimpanzees have intrinsic moral obligations? When they engage in genocidal wars could we say they violated these obligations? Or would such intrinsic obligations be unique to humans?

Or let's try and think of this another way. I don't think it's just coincidental that those who don't believe we have intrinsic obligations tend to be atheists, while those that do, tend to be believers of some sort. Because a belief in them, will likely give one's atheism a considerable pause, and put one's unbelief in a bit of a predicament. It's a concept comfortable for believers to hold, but is an uncomfortable fit for unbelievers.

Imagine if your child's teacher decided to teach the students there are intrinsic moral obligations, that their sense of right and wrong, are all indicators of that law within our hearts, conveying these intrinsic obligations of our very being. A child would likely wonder whose the law giver, that endowed us with these obligations? If he has non-religious parents, he will probably come home with a lot of questions.

And those parents would likely drag this teacher to the courts, and accuse him of violating the Establishment Clause. And I would have to agree with them.

Who gave us intrinsic moral obligations? We could say nature did. But what sort of nature are we being suggestive of, if it's capable of giving us intrinsic moral obligations, rather than ones that gave us a series of sensations, causing pleasure and discomfort? Would we be likely to hold to a view of nature as an unguided process? Or seemingly guided, conscious one, with foresight, and capacities to create with intent, to be able to create within us an intrinsic moral direction, which we are in fact obligated to?

If it were so, mother nature becomes even less of a metaphor, but is now suggestive of possessing the qualities of being.


You seem to bring up chimpanzees moral obligation a lot and compared it to human morality. Animals living in a social group follow some kind of social code or the society, lets say in this case, the chimpanzee society, breaks down and the chimp group dies off. Scientists see chimpanzees exhibit empathy and social morality, helping one another with food and taking care of the offspring of others. This morality is an evolved response to living in groups over many thousands of years. There is nothing intrinsic about this morality. It is tribal and instinctive.

Humans live in tribal situations even today. Countries, states, counties, neighborhoods, and religious groups are tribes and people instinctively look out for their own tribe and tribal views, as you are doing right now with every defensive post you make.

It isn't god given, it's a simple evolutionary response to living in close quarters with others of your own kind.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: