The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-01-2015, 03:45 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(18-01-2015 02:24 PM)DLJ Wrote:  @Tommy,
As to "why be moral at all?" Ace answered that with post #4.

Wink

I actually didn't mean that as a question seeking an actual answer.

Because it's kind of a given that we're not people who ask such a question. We already assume some degree of obligation to be moral, and most atheists one encounters are usually of this sort as well.

Such atheists like religious people tend to be devoted to the question of what is Good, rather than whether we should be good in the first place. Religious people in this dynamic perceive themselves as being obligated to be good, while such atheists tend to perceive it less as an obligation, and more as a personal choice. This difference is seemingly superficial.

But there's something else here. Something that religious believers bound by their own principles have never been able to offer. What if we could erase this seemingly religious imagination all together, erase a belief in an eternal law, the belief that we have an obligation to be moral, an aspect that has been a part of our moral imagination for a very long time, perhaps as long as our imagination itself.

What if we could pursued people to believe there is no moral law, no intrinsic moral obligations and duties, do you really think this would be a good thing?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2015, 04:03 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(18-01-2015 03:45 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...
Such atheists like religious people tend to be devoted to the question of what is Good, rather than whether we should be good in the first place. Religious people in this dynamic perceive themselves as being obligated to be good, while such atheists tend to perceive it less as an obligation, and more as a personal choice. This difference is seemingly superficial.
...
What if we could [persuade] people to believe there is no moral law, no intrinsic moral obligations and duties, do you really think this would be a good thing?

Oh yes.. Very yes! A very very yes good thing indeed.

You say:
Quote:This difference is seemingly superficial.

It's not. It's the very root of the problem.

Our epistemology is based on reason, logic and evidence. Or, it should be / often is. Do you agree?

Their's (the 'such' to which you refer) is based on Faith (authority, revelation, tradition).

One provides uncertainty and leads to enquiry (or despair Weeping perhaps).

The other provides certainty ... doxastic closure ... etc. etc. ... bloodshed. Dodgy

There might well be moral laws (that we create though discourse, consensus etc.), and intrinsic moral obligations and duties (although I actually can't think of any... only contextual ones).

It's not about persuading them (theists) that they (moral laws etc.) do not exist; it's about persuading them that there are better ways to seek and find them than through Faith.

Smartass

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2015, 04:49 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(18-01-2015 04:03 PM)DLJ Wrote:  It's not about persuading them (theists) that they (moral laws etc.) do not exist; it's about persuading them that there are better ways to seek and find them than through Faith.
The (Christian) religions create a dependent relationship with their followers.
They convince the followers that they are unworthy sinners and flawed human beings. They convince them that they need Jesus as their guide. They convince them that the church (via their church representative) is in special communion with Jesus and will provide guidance on Jesus' behalf.
In this way the followers come to accept that their own logic is fundamentally flawed, their ideas tarnished by their sinful desires are not to be trusted. Hence they are not to use their own reason or logic, they are not to accept "evidence" as presented by "man", they are instead to put their faith in god and Jesus and to be obedient.

Given this, I would think that the followers would not listen to you if you were to advise them that morality can be found without faith. "Do you know better than god?", "Do you think you are god?", "I'll go with thousands of years of the greatest church thinkers and divine guidance by god rather than your personal opinion or even my own personal opinion", "trying to come up with moral laws yourself is an arrogant stance which puts yourself above god" etc...

Personally, I would think that we could convince them to leave moral judgement up to god. That we each ought to make our own decisions and take care of our own adherence to moral law rather than to worry about what others are doing as only god can know what is in a person's heart, only god can judge and god's judgment will be perfect.
Human law is more about supporting a society so that we can cohabitate together relatively safely. Human law is an inappropriate place to implement god's law because we humans are imperfect, we are not positioned to make moral judgement's on god's behalf.

But of course some hardcore theists would claim that the government ought to take guidance from their own church when implementing law. Because of course, they believe that their church has a special relationship with god.

It's really a no compromise position, so it inevitable leads to conflict.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
18-01-2015, 04:56 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(18-01-2015 03:45 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  We already assume some degree of obligation to be moral, and most atheists one encounters are usually of this sort as well.

Such atheists like religious people tend to be devoted to the question of what is Good, rather than whether we should be good in the first place. Religious people in this dynamic perceive themselves as being obligated to be good, while such atheists tend to perceive it less as an obligation, and more as a personal choice. This difference is seemingly superficial.

Do have a little note pad you carry around and make little check marks under various headings about atheists and others ? How EXACTLY is it you think you know what you claim to know ? How many atheists EXACTLY have you "met" this month ?

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
18-01-2015, 05:52 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
The answer you need is not short. It is complex, but worth knowing.

The result of law is to ensure the result of being inviolate from the law. This state of inviolate is perfection, or overcoming the need for restriction. Law is negative happiness. It implies the forced need for the restriction. This is what law is--a restriction. Laws of nature are restrictions to allow order from what would otherwise be chaos. You are living in a universe that is governed to allow for negative happiness, or happiness derived from restriction. This is also imperfection, since a need is present, creating necessity. Need drives necessity. Necessity drives invention. Invention builds the mind. Law is the Strong Force in nature moving us to an eventual symmetry in balance with the demands of the law.

The prime directive of the universe is to seek, find and adapt. This is what we would expect in a created reality where newly formed consciousness is given a mind, intellect and will to choose it's own course of actions. Law is the restriction bringing balance back to the mind. If only one being existed, no law would be necessary. Individuation of mind does not demand this unless free will is present. A perfect copy of me would recognize me and do no harm. I would be the one choosing, no matter how many copies there were of me.

Because God has selected free will for mind (one consciousness), it is imperative that two states exist.

1) Inconscious, or the inability to see self in all things. Of course, this would then be the goal of eventual self-realization, or knowing who we are at our source (God).

2) Law and Restriction also exist to reward the will to give and reject the will to take. Free will necessitates that a wrong choice can be made. Nature is designed to self-correct all choices. For all actions, there are equal and opposite reactions. The universe is not obligated to this by its laws. The laws obligate us to the evident results. Law shows its own intent by design. Easily, foods that are good for you could have tasted good and sweet. Bitter herbs that are poison could have tasted like candy. I could go on.

Because law is practicable and not unreasonable, we also see that the law is divine. Nature is governed to give and demand that choice gives. Suffering is the state of all beings, either as a result or as a choice. The law of returns in mathematics is not invented, but demanded by the law. Debt must be paid. Surplus must be created. Apart form this, no chaos could be governed to balance and our wonderful universe of myriad forms would not be possible. Mind molds matter. Suffering necessitates we overcome, which is what the Bible shows as the goal of the restriction. Fight for the truth, the use it to overcome destruction. An adversary is necessary. Ego is the adversary. We also have an accuser (Conscience) telling us which way we should choose.

This is by design, and described in detail from ALL major religions in one unified message. LOVE. God is one of the the ones to love. He is the FIRST one to love. We are all HIM!

In the Yahweh is the Ego of Adam, or ruling mind. Satan is the accuser. Yahweh made Satan (Genesis 3:1). These are aspects of Adam's mind. We are imaged from the first, as we all can easily see by looking back in history. One mother. Eve was taken from Adam's DNA.

Example of why we suffer. It is higher reasoning at its finest:

Reward----------------------> Suffering ---------------------> Reward
Taking as a thief ------------> Giving Payment -------------------> Reward

Law is setup to reward those who given and take from those who don't. If you smoke, you get sick. Taking a reward always leads to debt. The Petrol Dollar Ponzi Scheme is a good example of this. Our national debt is based on the thief's debt. If you flip this, working out in a gym brings more health. Why? Payment is given; work is accomplished; something is produced from effort.

True reward can only come by overcoming and giving. Work and you get a paycheck. Sleep all day and get fired. Taking reward ends in suffering. Suffering on purpose ends in reward, better sleep and joy in the heart when your children eat. Smoke and you get cancer. Your kids suffer when you die. They also suffer the secondhand smoke that diminishes their health. In all cases, we suffer for reward. True reward comes from love and overcoming the law.

Laws in nature are set by invariance and symmetry. Protons and Neutrons set the course for electrons by following symmetry laws. Because of this, electrons (weak force) are shaped into meaningful forms. The early universe was a wash of high order and low entropy. This is because Hydrogen has one Proton (+) and one Electron (-), but no Neutron. It is the presence of the Neutron that provides the neutral state, around which, all things are formed by law.

Beyond the resource and catalyst of the early state of potential, something invades from the other side of matter. This is confirmed by the Dirac Relativistic Quantum Wave Equation. The veil between matter and antimatter is produced by law into a meaningful image we call reality. Chaos and destruction are brought into meaningful form above Space/Time. Three dimensions of spatial and one of time. Above this, collapsing wave function (quantum entanglement) of indeterminate probability.

The problem for all physicists is the FACT that consciousness is the aspect that determines the changing states of matter. In other words, chaos is managed and collapsed as information to form by the observer. That collapse is governed by law as a restriction. This is not conjecture. It is cold hard facts.

Organic life produces law by design, because new things are being created and produced from the resource by information management. It is on purpose, clearly. Free will must be managed until the law is understood. Once it is, as any righteous person will tell you, law is removed. No restriction. Why? Overcoming the restriction is accomplished by faith and determination of indeterminate states. Follow the law and the states of matter obey.

I am not implying that the laws of quantum mechanics can be eliminated. Laws are universal and cannot be taken away from the organic creation. Happiness comes to the mind of the observer when the law is followed. Love cannot cross the line of the restriction.

Here, we have the root truth. The restriction, in all cases, moves us to love others, produce surplus and gain mastery over the necessity. It moves chaos to unity. Organic life is made for the express purpose of life in the inorganic. Love is the only law. No wave function can be determined or collapsed unless a mind is making the choice. This is a fact. Choice requires a mind.

Baptism is a process to rise to new life. We are immersed into the water for this purpose.

POE

P. But again–why need this impediment have been produced?

V. The result of law inviolate is perfection–right–negative happiness. The result of law violate is imperfection, wrong, positive pain. Through the impediments afforded by the number, complexity, and substantiality of the laws of organic life and matter, the violation of law is rendered, to a certain extent, practicable. Thus pain, which is the inorganic life is impossible, is possible in the organic.

P. But to what good end is pain thus rendered possible?

V. All things are either good or bad by comparison. A sufficient analysis will show that pleasure in all cases, is but the contrast of pain. Positive pleasure is a mere idea. To be happy at any one point we must have suffered at the same. Never to suffer would have been never to have been blessed. But it has been shown that, in the inorganic life, pain cannot be; thus the necessity for the organic. The pain of the primitive life of Earth, is the sole basis of the bliss of the ultimate life in Heaven.

POE Mesmeric Revelation.

Read the Gita and Upanishads if you want to know more of this AMAZING truth. I am not ashamed to love God. By this, I love the worst and best of myself equally (all of us). It's why I am here, seeing myself in you. By this, God sees himself in us. All in All.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2015, 07:26 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
Nothing else for me Tomasia?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2015, 08:27 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
Dr King's language appeals to his audience.
If you want to shame a christian into action, you show them that they are horrible christians because they have allowed this particular act or action to continue.

All men should be treated equally with equal rights gets changed into all men are created equally with the same intrinsic rights.

Dr King appeals to the imaginary authority in their heads instead of saying, "We should treat all people fairly because we are all humans, born in the same way, on the same planet, all part of the same species. There is no reason why anyone should be treated unfairly, simply because he or she appears to be different.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
18-01-2015, 10:03 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(18-01-2015 07:14 AM)Chas Wrote:  Humans have a common sense of empathy and fairness that is a product of evolution. These aspects are also seen in other species.

That sense coupled with reason obviates any need for morality to have come from anywhere but from within by natural causes.

Correct, from simple observation, we can see in every social species that has families, groupings or that simply flock together that compassion and a sense of rules for etiquette in how to act while in such groups, as well as punishments for violating those rules that they all follow very basic standards as we do.


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-01-2015, 10:09 PM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(18-01-2015 05:52 PM)AlephBet Wrote:  The answer you need is not short. It is complex, but worth knowing.

The result of law is to ensure the result of being inviolate from the law. This state of inviolate is perfection, or overcoming the need for restriction. Law is negative happiness. It implies the forced need for the restriction. This is what law is--a restriction. Laws of nature are restrictions to allow order from what would otherwise be chaos. You are living in a universe that is governed to allow for negative happiness, or happiness derived from restriction. This is also imperfection, since a need is present, creating necessity. Need drives necessity. Necessity drives invention. Invention builds the mind. Law is the Strong Force in nature moving us to an eventual symmetry in balance with the demands of the law.

The prime directive of the universe is to seek, find and adapt. This is what we would expect in a created reality where newly formed consciousness is given a mind, intellect and will to choose it's own course of actions. Law is the restriction bringing balance back to the mind. If only one being existed, no law would be necessary. Individuation of mind does not demand this unless free will is present. A perfect copy of me would recognize me and do no harm. I would be the one choosing, no matter how many copies there were of me.

Because God has selected free will for mind (one consciousness), it is imperative that two states exist.

1) Inconscious, or the inability to see self in all things. Of course, this would then be the goal of eventual self-realization, or knowing who we are at our source (God).

2) Law and Restriction also exist to reward the will to give and reject the will to take. Free will necessitates that a wrong choice can be made. Nature is designed to self-correct all choices. For all actions, there are equal and opposite reactions. The universe is not obligated to this by its laws. The laws obligate us to the evident results. Law shows its own intent by design. Easily, foods that are good for you could have tasted good and sweet. Bitter herbs that are poison could have tasted like candy. I could go on.

Because law is practicable and not unreasonable, we also see that the law is divine. Nature is governed to give and demand that choice gives. Suffering is the state of all beings, either as a result or as a choice. The law of returns in mathematics is not invented, but demanded by the law. Debt must be paid. Surplus must be created. Apart form this, no chaos could be governed to balance and our wonderful universe of myriad forms would not be possible. Mind molds matter. Suffering necessitates we overcome, which is what the Bible shows as the goal of the restriction. Fight for the truth, the use it to overcome destruction. An adversary is necessary. Ego is the adversary. We also have an accuser (Conscience) telling us which way we should choose.

This is by design, and described in detail from ALL major religions in one unified message. LOVE. God is one of the the ones to love. He is the FIRST one to love. We are all HIM!

In the Yahweh is the Ego of Adam, or ruling mind. Satan is the accuser. Yahweh made Satan (Genesis 3:1). These are aspects of Adam's mind. We are imaged from the first, as we all can easily see by looking back in history. One mother. Eve was taken from Adam's DNA.

Example of why we suffer. It is higher reasoning at its finest:

Reward----------------------> Suffering ---------------------> Reward
Taking as a thief ------------> Giving Payment -------------------> Reward

Law is setup to reward those who given and take from those who don't. If you smoke, you get sick. Taking a reward always leads to debt. The Petrol Dollar Ponzi Scheme is a good example of this. Our national debt is based on the thief's debt. If you flip this, working out in a gym brings more health. Why? Payment is given; work is accomplished; something is produced from effort.

True reward can only come by overcoming and giving. Work and you get a paycheck. Sleep all day and get fired. Taking reward ends in suffering. Suffering on purpose ends in reward, better sleep and joy in the heart when your children eat. Smoke and you get cancer. Your kids suffer when you die. They also suffer the secondhand smoke that diminishes their health. In all cases, we suffer for reward. True reward comes from love and overcoming the law.

Laws in nature are set by invariance and symmetry. Protons and Neutrons set the course for electrons by following symmetry laws. Because of this, electrons (weak force) are shaped into meaningful forms. The early universe was a wash of high order and low entropy. This is because Hydrogen has one Proton (+) and one Electron (-), but no Neutron. It is the presence of the Neutron that provides the neutral state, around which, all things are formed by law.

Beyond the resource and catalyst of the early state of potential, something invades from the other side of matter. This is confirmed by the Dirac Relativistic Quantum Wave Equation. The veil between matter and antimatter is produced by law into a meaningful image we call reality. Chaos and destruction are brought into meaningful form above Space/Time. Three dimensions of spatial and one of time. Above this, collapsing wave function (quantum entanglement) of indeterminate probability.

The problem for all physicists is the FACT that consciousness is the aspect that determines the changing states of matter. In other words, chaos is managed and collapsed as information to form by the observer. That collapse is governed by law as a restriction. This is not conjecture. It is cold hard facts.

Organic life produces law by design, because new things are being created and produced from the resource by information management. It is on purpose, clearly. Free will must be managed until the law is understood. Once it is, as any righteous person will tell you, law is removed. No restriction. Why? Overcoming the restriction is accomplished by faith and determination of indeterminate states. Follow the law and the states of matter obey.

I am not implying that the laws of quantum mechanics can be eliminated. Laws are universal and cannot be taken away from the organic creation. Happiness comes to the mind of the observer when the law is followed. Love cannot cross the line of the restriction.

Here, we have the root truth. The restriction, in all cases, moves us to love others, produce surplus and gain mastery over the necessity. It moves chaos to unity. Organic life is made for the express purpose of life in the inorganic. Love is the only law. No wave function can be determined or collapsed unless a mind is making the choice. This is a fact. Choice requires a mind.

Baptism is a process to rise to new life. We are immersed into the water for this purpose.

POE

P. But again–why need this impediment have been produced?

V. The result of law inviolate is perfection–right–negative happiness. The result of law violate is imperfection, wrong, positive pain. Through the impediments afforded by the number, complexity, and substantiality of the laws of organic life and matter, the violation of law is rendered, to a certain extent, practicable. Thus pain, which is the inorganic life is impossible, is possible in the organic.

P. But to what good end is pain thus rendered possible?

V. All things are either good or bad by comparison. A sufficient analysis will show that pleasure in all cases, is but the contrast of pain. Positive pleasure is a mere idea. To be happy at any one point we must have suffered at the same. Never to suffer would have been never to have been blessed. But it has been shown that, in the inorganic life, pain cannot be; thus the necessity for the organic. The pain of the primitive life of Earth, is the sole basis of the bliss of the ultimate life in Heaven.

POE Mesmeric Revelation.

Read the Gita and Upanishads if you want to know more of this AMAZING truth. I am not ashamed to love God. By this, I love the worst and best of myself equally (all of us). It's why I am here, seeing myself in you. By this, God sees himself in us. All in All.

Oh, and of course you just happen to have the answer everyone needs.
Well, thank Jebus you're here. What *would* we all have done if you hadn't happened along ?

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
19-01-2015, 07:36 AM
RE: The Religious Components of Moral Beliefs
(18-01-2015 11:52 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  This is one of the big issues I have with religion and religious beliefs. It operates under the assumption that as long as it adheres to the commandments of its god, then it is doing the right thing. The Nazis thought the same thing.

The sort of commandment in consideration here is different than the one you have in mind. You are considering a different question, then the one the entire post revolves around.

You're considering the question of how religious beliefs, traditions, and in particular religious scriptures influence our perception of what is right.

But the question I'm interested, is the role of religions in making us perceive that we are obligated to do what is right. Or in essence the only religious command in question here, is the commandment to do what is right, to do what is good. This commandment is independent of how each individual perceives what is right or not. In fact religious people who have different ideas of what is right, still believe they are commanded to do what is right.

An analogy would be, moral disputes among religious people, is akin to lawyers arguing over an interpretation of law, to do what is good. They presuppose a law, and then proceed to interpret what the good course of actions would be. And since this belief is so predominant, and incapsulates the moral perceptions of most people currently and historically, our moral discourse tends to see itself as a part of this sort of dispute.

In fact when unbelievers, who believes there is no eternal moral law, partake in the moral discourse, they in essence participate as another lawyers in this courtroom, they benefit from the fact that all parties perceive themselves as obligated to do what is right, to do what is good.

They don't tend to be individuals who declare that there is no eternal moral law, that creates an obligation to be good, so why are we even arguing about this? They don't declare that the entire courtroom is based on a sham, even if at some level they might believe it is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: