by leavingwt 73 Replies latest jw friends
Well, if we go back to my first post, and IF you accept that there is selfish morals and unselfish morals, MAYBE God is needed for a "greater good".
A person dying to save someone they don't know ( In the case of a man that drowns saving a stranger) is hardly a "natural thing", there is nothing positive for that persons "genes" to compel him to die for no (benefitial) reason, is there? Perhaps that is where God comes in?
For that to be the case, unselfish acts would have to be the sole possession of believers. Similarly, selfish acts (such as people who walk by muggings and do nothing) could not be perpetuated by believers.
I don't see any way around it except to say that God has nothing to do with human morality.
Not only is God unnecessary for living a moral life, I'd argue that in fact it's simply not possible to live a good and moral life without deciding for yourself where your moral boundaries lie.
Of course, society places limits on individuals but these are all commonly accepted norms of behaviour and most of us are perfectly willing to accept these restrictions.
However, abdicate your responsibility to decide what is right and wrong, avoid the duty of being a part of society that decides by judicial processes where the limits of morally acceptable behaviour lie and what are you are left with?
Religious dogma, intolerance and inequality.
I don't believe so.
IMHO - Morals are primarily dictated by the community wherein we reside - though that community may in fact interpret some so referred 'Divine law' or 'Holy Writ' as basis for establishment of those moral standards. A fair cross-section of those who live without belief in God at all, would be interesting to see - I imagine that the general standards of life for that group vary little, in the main, from those believers who insist that their morals come from God. Of course, education, as opposed to fear, would dictate some differences in choices - but overall, I don't believe you would find more murder, domestic violence, or rape among atheists than among believers. { I have no scientific reference for the above - though I would find that interesting to peruse. I just shot from my gut reaction here. }
Jeff
For that to be the case, unselfish acts would have to be the sole possession of believers. Similarly, selfish acts (such as people who walk by muggings and do nothing) could not be perpetuated by believers.
I don't see any way around it except to say that God has nothing to do with human morality
Hmmm,perhaps, but how would you explain a totally unselfish act of self-sacrifice?
Whether a person believes in God or not is irrelevant if all were created with a "moral gene" put their by God ( for arguments sake of course).
I don't believe so.
IMHO - Morals are primarily dictated by the community wherein we reside -
I think certain morals yes, but the core fundamental morals, no.
Sure some people play loose and free with the big ones like "don't kill", but lets be honest, every society agrees that they don't want to be KILLED so the core of killing being wrong is there or else wrong and killing wouldn't equate in ANY fashion.
Core morals come from somewhere and typically they were "god driven" even in the most primitive of societies, they had to of come from somewhere and even more so those "unselfish morals".
Hmmm,perhaps, but how would you explain a totally unselfish act of self-sacrifice?
There are many such, it would be tough to nail them all down. I would say that no act is ever truly unselfish - combined with the fact that we are a tribal animal. (See tribal animals making sacrifices to protect the young from predators - this is not isolated to humans)
Whether a person believes in God or not is irrelevant if all were created with a "moral gene" put their by God ( for arguments sake of course).
Who created the immoral people? The sociopaths? etc? If this is part of our creative makeup, we must all have it. Sociopaths absolutely do not.
There are many such, it would be tough to nail them all down. I would say that no act is ever truly unselfish - combined with the fact that we are a tribal animal. (See tribal animals making sacrifices to protect the young from predators - this is not isolated to humans)
Dying to save a stranger is NOT a tribal thing and animals do not sacrifice themselves for other animals outside thier "kin".
Who created the immoral people? The sociopaths? etc? If this is part of our creative makeup, we must all have it. Sociopaths absolutely do not.
Having something and not using it is a choice, but if a person was indeed born "without it" then it would be an anomally, a "birth defect".
PS: "animals do not sacrifice themselves for other animals outside thier "kin".", If by Kin you mean close family, i think you are wrong. If by Kin you mean race, well, i think few humans would sacrefice their lives for an animal.
Dying to save a stranger is NOT a tribal thing and animals do not sacrifice themselves for other animals outside thier "kin".
All other humans are our kin. People do not willingly go into situations where death is imminent (or completely unavoidable) for strangers. But we also have a cultural thing where putting yourself in harm's way for the good of others is deemed heroic. In all cases the one at risk is getting something out of it. There are no completely unselfish acts.
Having something and not using it is a choice, but if a person was indeed born "without it" then it would be an anomally, a "birth defect".
This is inconsistent with your idea that an a creator being is installing this morality gene in us. Your new theory about birth defects suggests that the creator being can fail, or be thwarted in giving his creation something that is completely necessary for them to function in everyday life.
