juantoo3's comments in 'Proofs for God's Non-Existence' thread

[lunamoth]

I disagree that our current idea of ethics and morality could be reached in a vacuum by logic alone. I think that these are learned things. I believe that the foundational human virtue is love but we need to receive love and education to bring morality and ethics to fruition in our lives.

But, we are social creatures and so it really is impossible (and not logical!) to postulate how we would be outside a social context. Bruce said it elsewhere, our theology would be "oh no! I'm dead!."

lunamoth

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Starship! Have we met before? Welcome to CR!

Thank you for a post that has me thinking.

I think morals can be reached out of logic. one knows not to make another being suffer because there is no reason for the other being's happiness to be any more important than their own. We need to get beyond our impulses that value our selves over anyone else, and try to end the suffering of all beings. That is the logical thing to do. I don't think any god is required to make the rules.

My first impulse is to think your synopsis sounds very Buddhist. Which, if one were to analyze my argument, they would see that I am making a sincere attempt at inclusiveness. There might be some disagreement with my choice of terminology, "God concept," but the concept itself is very inclusive of the Buddhist moral path and application through society.

On further reflection, I could also add that logic combined with human nature does not necessarily lead to what we collectively term as morality. On one hand, I could say that logic as a discipline began with the Greeks, as I recall sometime around 500 BC, well into the development of social/cutural/political/religous structures for civil humanity. On the other hand, presuming that an elemental logic existed but not named as such in earlier times, that thought process could as easily be turned by human nature towards actions we now deem immoral. How best to sucker your opponent, so to speak, without getting caught. How to keep and hold power, or wealth. A lot depends on the motivation and direction that logic is applied. In short, application of logic to morality is not of itself sufficient without proper motivation and direction. That proper motivation and direction, in my argument, is through the use of a "God concept."

Does that help?

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Lunamoth!

Thanks!

I disagree that our current idea of ethics and morality could be reached in a vacuum by logic alone. I think that these are learned things.

Yes, I agree.

I believe that the foundational human virtue is love but we need to receive love and education to bring morality and ethics to fruition in our lives.

I was wondering when and how love would enter the discussion...

we are social creatures and so it really is impossible (and not logical!) to postulate how we would be outside a social context.

I agree.

Bruce said it elsewhere, our theology would be "oh no! I'm dead!."

I missed this, but from the sound of it, I think I would have to agree.

[lunamoth]

Dear Juan,

You use the term "God concept" as if God really were a creation of humans with the primary goal of keeping us in line. From other posts you've made I think perhaps this is a misunderstanding, but I'll let you explain if you wish.

I think that while morality is an outcome of religious life, it is not a primary factor in our relationship with God. Our reason for being is to know and worship God, to love God and love God's creation (esp each other). Morality, or the fruit of the Spirit, is an outflowing of that love.

peace,
lunamoth

[Freedom of Opinion]

Juan,
Thx for your reply. A question has arisen from your writings and I wondered, do you assume that man is naturally evil? I think that this opinion of man is what leads to the different opinions were seeing as to whether or not morality comes from a god concept.(that is the question here, right?) For example, I see man as over-all good, with or without the guidance of any religion. Therefore, I do agree with starship that morality can be reached from logic, not god.
I'm not sure that sticks to the thread, I was just curious.

[InLove]

Hi, and Peace--

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I think that while morality is an outcome of religious life, it is not a primary factor in our relationship with God. Our reason for being is to know and worship God, to love God and love God's creation (esp each other). Morality, or the fruit of the Spirit, is an outflowing of that love.

Well said. I agree.

InPeace,
InLove

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Lunamoth!

Originally Posted by lunamoth

You use the term "God concept" as if God really were a creation of humans with the primary goal of keeping us in line. From other posts you've made I think perhaps this is a misunderstanding, but I'll let you explain if you wish.

Yes, thank you. Remember, this discussion was raised by atheists, so the argument is pointed to those who deny the existence of God, in whatever way God is traditionally considered (inclusive of the Buddhist view).

With that in mind, I will reference a previous posting I made:

I am *not* saying "God" said "let there be morality." If there is one point atheists could take to the bank is that I am saying "God" (*as a concept) is a "description" by humanity. However, I will clarify this statement here by saying that if there were nothing to describe, then why have all cultures and societies from ancient times made the attempt to describe "God?"

Put another way, I have consistently argued not from the top down with the assumption God exists, but rather I have always argued from the bottom up. Explain to me please why "God," in the manner I have already laid out and explained, is such a consistent matter of fact throughout all societies and cultures across time if there is nothing there?

I hope that helps clarify.

I think that while morality is an outcome of religious life, it is not a primary factor in our relationship with God. Our reason for being is to know and worship God, to love God and love God's creation (esp each other). Morality, or the fruit of the Spirit, is an outflowing of that love.

I do agree with you, philosophically and materially. Being able to argue these things in a logical debate is where things get a little dicey. If we appeal to authority the other does not recognize, the argument becomes fallacious in their eyes. I have earlier stated I do believe in God, however I can no more prove God than anyone else can disprove God. All we have is circumstantial evidence. I am convinced, and my argument is an attempt to demonstrate, that the weight of circumstantial evidence is in my favor, and points to something out there, something we (most of us anyhow) call God, or at least some form of "God concept."

I am convinced there is something out there greater than our collective selves. My argument is an attempt to show this is so, to those who do not agree.

I did not start this thread. My chance comments were pulled out for discussion. I am defending my position. So far, I think, successfully. Praise God!

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Freedom!

Thank you for your post!

Originally Posted by Freedom of Opinion

Thx for your reply. A question has arisen from your writings and I wondered, do you assume that man is naturally evil? I think that this opinion of man is what leads to the different opinions were seeing as to whether or not morality comes from a god concept.(that is the question here, right?) For example, I see man as over-all good, with or without the guidance of any religion. Therefore, I do agree with starship that morality can be reached from logic, not god.

Quite honestly, the consideration of humanity being inherently good or bad had not entered my thoughts in terms of this discussion.

I suppose, in a natural sense, that humanity is neither good nor bad, it just is, at least from our point of view.

Now, if one considers that God created all, and all is good, then by extension humanity would be inherently good. Of course, this would negate the necessity for morality in the first place, from the point of view of this discussion. Unless there are mitigating factors we are overlooking, such as perhaps introduction of bad.

I do not think humanity is created bad. I think it can turn bad, or use itself towards bad purposes. A lot depends on outside mitigating factors I for one have no idea what may be, physically, mentally or spiritually. That is, no idea I care to use for debate.

[StarshipEnterprise]

I disagree that our current idea of ethics and morality could be reached in a vacuum by logic alone. I think that these are learned things. I believe that the foundational human virtue is love but we need to receive love and education to bring morality and ethics to fruition in our lives.

But, we are social creatures and so it really is impossible (and not logical!) to postulate how we would be outside a social context. Bruce said it elsewhere, our theology would be "oh no! I'm dead!."

lunamoth

I don't know where you get the vaccum part. I mean that it can be reached when we see the suffering of others and we know what that is like based on our experience. We see a problem and the solution is morals. I also don't doubt that we must learn these things, but they all have their roots in logic.

I think logic is the ideal way that morals come about. They more often come out of emotion and desire not to get caught.

[Jaiket]

Thanks for your respons Juan. I apologise for taking so long to respond.

Originally Posted by juantoo3

If I may be so bold as to ask, where did you learn your morality? On a more philosophical note, where does morality come from?

Friends, family, and education (some of this was religious) contributed. The main part is without doubt, for me, evolution. If you like I can expand upon his. Although I'm sure you will have heard much, if not all, of what I have to say on the matter.

Originally Posted by Juan

Is what you are describing "situational ethics?"

I've no idea.

Originally Posted by Juan

What happens when in alleviating the suffering of one you create suffering for another?

What do you mean 'what happens'?

Originally Posted by Juan

Is lying "ethical" in certain situations and not in others, depending on the desired outcome? Is murder "ethical" in certain situations and not in others, depending on the desired outcome?

I've often wondered this myself. Currently I am undecided.

Originally Posted by Juan

And who gets to define the desired outcome, each individual? What then happens when competing outcomes collide? Mill's Utilitarianism is not perfect, particularly when there is not a standard outcome for all to strive for.

I'm afraid you've lost me.

Originally Posted by Juan

I merely suggested that atheists conform because of social pressure to do so. In the absence of that social pressure, I cannot help but wonder just how moral an atheist can truly be?

I'm afraid I read that question as, how moral an atheist will be in the absence of morals?

Originally Posted by Juan

Law, in and of itself, is not the sum total of morality, nor is morality the sum total of law. Having said this, it is plainly evident by anthropological evidence, such as the Code of Hammurabi, that the earliest codified law was based on religious morality teachings.

The earliest codified law? What does codified entail entirely here?

Originally Posted by Juan

The further we go back beyond this, we enter a "chicken and egg" dilemma, which came first: religion or morality?

Did we learn to treat each other decently before we became religious? I cannot answer this.

Originally Posted by Juan

I should qualify what I mean by religion here, in that I mean "awareness of 'God'." Here, "God" means "something beyond, something over which humans are helpless and submissive to the power of."

I don't like your definition. You've limited religion to awarness of god and then defined god so vaguely as to make it a useless term. Secondly you've limited it to humans without any a priori reason to do so. I hope we can clear this up.

Originally Posted by Juan

without "God" our morality would be no better than animals, in effect, a return to the cave. Animals do not perceive that "murder" applies even to adversaries, not just the pack. (I choose murder here as example, I hope it doesn't return to bite me in the butt...)

I don't see better or worse in animals, so let's not debate that issue. Regarding murder, it is strange that you used a word that only applies to human law i.e. animals cannot commit murder. Maybe I'm toying with words.

Originally Posted by Juan

Now, humans are not immune from this, but on a percentage basis it is done with far less frequency.

Genocide is taken to a fine art by humans.

Originally Posted by Juan

as we as civilized humans understand the concept, is religious in essence. And that without some kind of "God" concept, we would not be able to see far enough to comprehend "good" and "evil." Our actions would be those of the moment, with no regard for consequences. That includes suffering animals and ecological disasters.

I find it hard to agree or disagree since what you define as religion is rather alien to me. It cannot have escaped you that some kind of 'god' concept (or something beyond, something over which humans are helpless and submissive to the power of) is something humans must possess and follow living within a society, an environment, and a universe. We are all susceptible to the laws of physics for instance and the laws of the lands. By this definition do you not believe we are all theists and therefore no such thing as an atheist exists, making our whole conversation relatively useless.

It might not surprise you that I do not agree with your definition of 'religious' or 'god'.

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Jaiket!

Thank you for your thoughtful response!

Originally Posted by Jaiket

Friends, family, and education (some of this was religious) contributed.

OK. I think I find agreement with my statement of latent religious morality in society and culture, but I can see where you might disagree.

The main part is without doubt, for me, evolution. If you like I can expand upon his. Although I'm sure you will have heard much, if not all, of what I have to say on the matter.

For the discussion, it probably would be valuable if you did expand on this. If not for me, than for the sake of others reading. That is, if you have the time and inclination.

(*What happens when in alleviating the suffering of one you create suffering for another?*)What do you mean 'what happens'?

Is it still an ethical action, if by alleviating suffering for one creature you create suffering for another creature? I guess one example might be, if you save a rabbit from a coyote (you did say alleviating suffering of animals), your action may seem ethical to the rabbit, but not by the coyote.

(*Is lying "ethical" in certain situations and not in others, depending on the desired outcome? Is murder "ethical" in certain situations and not in others, depending on the desired outcome?*)I've often wondered this myself. Currently I am undecided.

This is the crux of situational ethics.

(*And who gets to define the desired outcome, each individual? What then happens when competing outcomes collide? Mill's Utilitarianism is not perfect, particularly when there is not a standard outcome for all to strive for.*)I'm afraid you've lost me.

In another thread I pointed to how Utilitarian ethics, "the end justifies the means," "for the greater good," was used to justify the dropping of the atom bomb on Japan in WWII. In that instance, there was a standard outcome among the allies to end the war. I guess if I stay with the atom bomb dilemma to demonstrate this, competing outcomes would be Russia (and from there, others) gaining the atom bomb in defense and retaliation. Which lead to the Cold War and Mutually Assured Destruction. This illustrates the madness of Utilitarianism on a governmental level. Imagine applying these same principles at an individual level. With everyone competing for their own selfish outcomes, the justification of moral action falls apart. It is only when a unified outcome is desired by all parties involved that such a moral construct can work. I agree in general terms that logic can direct morality, but logic alone cannot account for the pervasiveness of the "God concept" as far back as pre-history. I will have to wait to see your input about evolution, but at this point I fail to see how evolution can account for the pervasiveness of the "God concept" as far back as pre-history. The "God concept" not only can provide a unifying justification and desired outcome for all, I think history shows that it has done that very thing.

(*In the absence of that social pressure, I cannot help but wonder just how moral an atheist can truly be?*) I'm afraid I read that question as, how moral an atheist will be in the absence of morals?

Not quite. In the absence of social pressure to be moral.

Think of it this way. If there is no compelling reason to be moral, why are we moral? Because it is the right thing to do? Nah, I don't think so. With no compelling reason, there is no "right or wrong," no "good or bad." In the absence of a compelling reason to be moral, we will live down to what is expected of us. Society performs the function of compelling us to be moral, especially if we have no other compelling reason ("God concept"). And since society bases its morality, way back when, on religious teachings leading into codified law, it stands that latent religious morality resides in society, in the form of law, and also as institutional religion.

The earliest codified law? What does codified entail entirely here?

I don't know that I can fully express "entirely" without writing a book. Codified law, in the artifactual evidence of the Code of Hammurabi, is one of the earliest known writings of religious "morality" into a set of principles to guide a society. By King's decree, all people in that society were subject to the same set unified standard. Law and punishment were no longer arbitrary. This became a formalized set standard by which all were compelled by rule to obey. Breaking the law, also interpreted in this instance to acting unethically or immorally, was subject to penalty. Ideally, standard and consequences were uniform regardless of position in society. I think we both know where things went from there...

Did we learn to treat each other decently before we became religious? I cannot answer this.

Likewise, I have not found a valid solution either, and I have looked for a long time.

(*I should qualify what I mean by religion here, in that I mean "awareness of 'God'." Here, "God" means "something beyond, something over which humans are helpless and submissive to the power of."*) I don't like your definition. You've limited religion to awarness of god and then defined god so vaguely as to make it a useless term. Secondly you've limited it to humans without any a priori reason to do so. I hope we can clear this up.

I will try. Begin with the two definitions of religion I have previously laid out: religion in the private, personal sense; and religion in the institutional sense. Sometimes I neglect to point out which I mean. Apologies. In this quote, I mean religion in the private sense, our internal realization of the "God concept."

Now, as to the "a priori" reason, I first have to ask what it is you mean by "a priori?" I have heard the term, but I am unfamiliar with what it means. I am glad you brought this up though, because it opens the door to animal understanding of the "God concept," which is not lost on me. Personally, I do think animals have an awareness of God. But in much the same way as the Jewish tradition holds that non-Jews are subject only to the Noahide Laws, I feel that the animals are as well held to a lesser demand concerning morality. Natural morality, in the sense of as applied to animals, is so different from what civil humans hold as morality as to be almost exclusive of one another. I am not fully sure this is what I mean to say here, but it is the best I can do for now.

Now, even though I believe animals have an elemental understanding of the "God concept," I cannot demonstrate, and so have left this out of the conversation for now.

This also raises the quandary, addressed at length in the thread "Morality in Evolution," of whether the morality of animals is suitable for civil humanity. So I must ask if that is where you intend to go from here? It should make for an interesting discussion.

I don't see better or worse in animals, so let's not debate that issue. Regarding murder, it is strange that you used a word that only applies to human law i.e. animals cannot commit murder. Maybe I'm toying with words.

Actually, this begins to illustrate what I just tried to say. Nature, in my studies, shows itself to be a rather cruel teacher of morality. Only in the most general sense, and then in terms humans are not now accustomed to hearing, does nature teach morality. I mean, suffering is natural. Murder is natural. Killing one's own offspring is natural. So do we take these as moral lessons to apply to society?

Genocide is taken to a fine art by humans.

Agreed, in the form of war, when the opponent is turned into an "other," meaning not one of us and therefore not suitable for moral treatment. I do not say this to justify it, it is how things have been done by humans for millenia.

I find it hard to agree or disagree since what you define as religion is rather alien to me. It cannot have escaped you that some kind of 'god' concept (or something beyond, something over which humans are helpless and submissive to the power of) is something humans must possess and follow living within a society, an environment, and a universe. We are all susceptible to the laws of physics for instance and the laws of the lands. By this definition do you not believe we are all theists and therefore no such thing as an atheist exists, making our whole conversation relatively useless.

Ah, good turnabout! The definition I proposed had more to do with being inclusive. In the end, religion (in both senses as I described, private and institutional) goes back to some form of shamanism and/or animism, by what archeological evidences we have found. The shaman represents the beginning of institutional religion, people went to "him" for advice and direction. But all peoples, from the time of the opening of the door of awareness and conscious thought, have some realization of the "God concept." Perhaps, in some evolutionary way, this reaches back to before humans became human. In that I can agree. Nevertheless, the "God concept" exists. Like love, we do not understand why or how, but we know that it does.

It might not surprise you that I do not agree with your definition of 'religious' or 'god'.

I do not expect agreement. I do expect logical dissent and correction. In that, you have been a great sport. Thank you!

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by StarshipEnterprise

I don't know where you get the vaccum part. I mean that it can be reached when we see the suffering of others and we know what that is like based on our experience. We see a problem and the solution is morals. I also don't doubt that we must learn these things, but they all have their roots in logic.

I think logic is the ideal way that morals come about. They more often come out of emotion and desire not to get caught.

Hi Starship,

OK, sorry! I did not mean to offend! My thinking about morality is based on logic and reason, too.

I'll say it clearly that I think you can be moral without having a theistic worldview. But, I'm less sure that morality is logical. Every logical analysis starts with a base assumption. My base assumption is that humans were created good by a loving God. I also accept the ToE and that evolution has shaped our behaviour. Guess that puts me in the camp of theistic evolutionists, although I don't like that label because it makes it sound like evolution is something you "believe," rather than being based upon observation and testable hypotheses. Anyways...

I think that the quality of our morality reflects not our intellectual assent to God or Humanism, but reflects our level of trust in the world. Do we feel secure, loved and optimistic or insecure, fearful and pessimistic? In the second scenario I think it less likely that we will be able to share our food with our starving neighbor when we are concerned about feeding our own family. It creates a utlitarian worldview of holding onto whatever you have, and getting more at (any) expense. So, to me the question is not whether morality comes due to logic or faith, but the level of trust (or conversely, fear). But then, where does our feeling of trust come from?

peace,
lunamoth

[earl]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Hi Burce,

No, that is not what I meant nor what I beleive. I think most people are moral whether or not they beleive in God or adhere to a religion. Actually, I think that morality has a lot more to do with mental health than with one's religous or philosophical worldview, for the most part.

What I did mean is that our contemporary view of morality has been shaped mostly by religion over the centuries. Up until recently a human being could hardly imagine having a secular worldview. This was changed by the Enlightenment.

peace,
lunamoth

Very true, lunamoth. It's about conscience in general and to some degree over-all mental health. When it's there we generally do the right thing. When it's not, externally-imposed morality in no matter who's name is tenuous at best. I must admit to ambivalence re the "secularization" of culture &, in fact, I think the burgeeoning multi-form interest in spirituality/religion in the secularized West is in counter-response to the secular trend. We do tend to feel a real lack of center and substance to a society that pushes matters of the Spirit too far from central stage. At the same time, the balancing point of a secularistic tendency is to ensure that no 1 form of it is universally imposed upon citizenry, including, of course, the right to not be spiritual at all. I have my own spiritual and non-spiritual phases, (the latter occurs when I get tired of trying to get my spiritual act together & just want to chill for awhile ). Take care, Earl

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, earl!

Thank you for your response.

I like the way you tend to put things. I am in agreement that because morality exists does not mean we are always moral or ethical in our actions. I think sometimes that our religious moral constructs sometimes seem deliberately impossible to always live up to. Yet, society insists that we try. Christianity helps make up for the shortcomings with the attitude of forgiveness, but even then forgiveness in practice seems to be dealt out in arbitrary fashion. But I digress from the original discussion...

Perhaps you are one to ask an important question regarding the parameters of the discussion. Since you are (at this point) a peripheral contributor with a unique and appropriate perspective, I would like to ask if you might have a better definition to offer for what I have been attempting to call a "God concept?" A definition that is inclusive of the major world faiths. One that might seem a bit more acceptable to our atheist friends here.

Thanks.

[earl]

Originally Posted by juantoo3

Kindest Regards, earl!

Thank you for your response.

I like the way you tend to put things. I am in agreement that because morality exists does not mean we are always moral or ethical in our actions. I think sometimes that our religious moral constructs sometimes seem deliberately impossible to always live up to. Yet, society insists that we try. Christianity helps make up for the shortcomings with the attitude of forgiveness, but even then forgiveness in practice seems to be dealt out in arbitrary fashion. But I digress from the original discussion...

Perhaps you are one to ask an important question regarding the parameters of the discussion. Since you are (at this point) a peripheral contributor with a unique and appropriate perspective, I would like to ask if you might have a better definition to offer for what I have been attempting to call a "God concept?" A definition that is inclusive of the major world faiths. One that might seem a bit more acceptable to our atheist friends here.

Thanks.

My heavens, (no pun intended ). what a challenging assignment. Hmmm? to attempt to conceptually word such a grand notion as "God" in a way that doesn't trigger conceptual revulsion. Tough task, but I guess I'd say that "God" is the personified impetus and matrix, (ground and goal) of the path that continually pushes, nudges, impells us to move beyond who we take ourselves to be just the previous moment. It impells us to be both more than and other than who we thought we were; asks us, challenges us, and yet somehow supports us. In our largeness we add more of the world into us and add more to the world in the process. Less us, more Other, 'til neither us nor Other, just all this, Is/ Am. Then what? Love. Take care, Earl