Religious Discussion Thread

[Northern Beaches dog]

Humans based on evolutionary benefit and society.

LOL no.

What does a good cell or an evil cell look like?

Which society? North Korea? Nazi Germany?

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

OK. Let's take this down another path. Let's look at murder. Is that objectively immoral?

Under Christian theism it is wrong/evil
Under naturalism, it is neither good or evil.
It just is

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

Humans based on evolutionary benefit and society.

Which humans? Hitler? Stalin?

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

I still don't think you're understanding what I'm saying. I say that because you started posting exactly what I said, but then jumped to a completely different conclusion.

I have stated multiple times that evolution is not what "ought" to be. It just is. I keep saying this. We develop morality because that's how we developed. No intelligent design behind it.

You keep jumping back to the is-ought fallacy but I keep saying that there is no is-ought because there is no "ought". We did not evolve this way because we ought to be this way. We evolved this way by chance. Chance and best fit. Why did it work out for humans? Because we evolved. Because it's our system that we evolved in.

Here's a nice little analogy for you. There's an arid area. It rain occasionally, but the water doesn't hang around. Eventually the winds and animal erosion leads to holes. Over time these holes get deeper. Eventually they become basins. Now when it rains the water fills up the basins. As the water can hang around, it leads to animals drinking water from the basins. Birds and other animals bring seeds in their stomachs from other areas and they poop them out near the water basins. Over time the combination of the water and manure allows these seeds to grow. End result, we have a viable oasis from an arid land.

Do we thank God for this oasis? Of course not. It was just a natural process. A bunch of random things that worked together to end up with exactly what the area needed. This has happened quite often in nature. But we don't call it "ought to be", it just is. Just like humans.

"Now lets say we act in contrary to what biological evolution like committed a murder, have we done anything wrong?
The answer is NO"

Again, incorrect. If evolution changed and murder was no longer detrimental to our survival. If it actually increased our survival, and society had nothing against murder, would it be wrong? No. It wouldn't. Because that would be the morality of the society based on that process.

But that's not the case. We did evolve this way. And it's not just the random part. Not killing other tribe members is always going to advance the species. So it's likely any other species would evolve the same way. But maybe they wouldn't. And it doesn't matter because this is the way we evolved and this is why we have our morality. No ought about it.

You are saying that evolution is not oughts, but that is what morality is. It is OUGHTS.

I keep on bringing up IS OUGHT because you keep on bringing up biology.

You are acting as if biology/evolution is something we should bow down to.

Biology does not define good/evil/
Science is morally neutral

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Under Christian theism it is wrong/evil
Under naturalism, it is neither good or evil.
It just is

Just murder or all killing?

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

And you dont agree that those objective truths are universally valid under all circumstance. Ie dealing absolutes.

You agree that exist independent of the human mind, but vary according to context and circumstance.

It has an objective reference point. Like consequesialism and consequences, Harris and wellbeing etc

You are using your specific interpretation of a God for your reference point. Which is subjective in itself.

Now if you look into Williams Craigs argument for morality. He uses definition 1 in his first premise then changes to definition 2 in his second premise.

Well, i am not arguing for moral absolutes, rather objective morality.

The VALUE is universe but the context around it changes. We see this many times in the bible.

For example, a father tells his 6 year old to stay away from the road.

15 years later the father tells his son to hit the road.

While they seem contradictory commands, the VALUE stays the same. In this case, the value is Love.

The father is telling his son to stay away from the road to protect him from being by a car. He is protecting him.
15 years later, the father is telling him to hit the road, ie work.
In both cases it is love.

In terms of consequences this is incorrect.

For example, look at homosexuality.

Under a naturalistic world, what are the consequences if it? Well, on the surface, nothing. If both people love each other, is there a negative consequence? No.
Under Christian theism, it is a sin regardless if it is harming another person or not.

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

Just murder or all killing?

Murder.
Murder is different from killing.
I can kill someone completely accidently. No intent.
Murder is with intent.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

You are saying that evolution is not oughts, but that is what morality is. It is OUGHTS.

I keep on bringing up IS OUGHT because you keep on bringing up biology.

You are acting as if biology/evolution is something we should bow down to.

Biology does not define good/evil/
Science is morally neutral

But society does determine morality. By definition, morality is defined by society or by a group. And society and groups get their moral beliefs from a combination of evolutionary psychology and societal influence.

 

[Dogna88]

Well, i am not arguing for moral absolutes, rather objective morality.

The VALUE is universe but the context around it changes. We see this many times in the bible.

For example, a father tells his 6 year old to stay away from the road.

15 years later the father tells his son to hit the road.

While they seem contradictory commands, the VALUE stays the same. In this case, the value is Love.

The father is telling his son to stay away from the road to protect him from being by a car. He is protecting him.
15 years later, the father is telling him to hit the road, ie work.
In both cases it is love.

In terms of consequences this is incorrect.

For example, look at homosexuality.

Under a naturalistic world, what are the consequences if it? Well, on the surface, nothing. If both people love each other, is there a negative consequence? No.
Under Christian theism, it is a sin regardless if it is harming another person or not.

Who/what is setting the value of OM in your interpretation?

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

But society does determine morality. By definition, morality is defined by society or by a group. And society and groups get their moral beliefs from a combination of evolutionary psychology and societal influence.

Yes, but that does not make it objective.
Society A says killing Jews is good and right.
Society B says killing Jews is evil and wrong.
If there is no OM, which society is right or wrong?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Murder.
Murder is different from killing.
I can kill someone completely accidently. No intent.
Murder is with intent.

Ok. But who determines the difference? Who determines where to draw the line?

Say you kill someone while defending yourself. Maybe you had to kill them. Maybe you didn't.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Yes, but that does not make it objective.
Society A says killing Jews is good and right.
Society B says killing Jews is evil and wrong.
If there is no OM, which society is right or wrong?

Each would be morally wrong to the other.

If Society A determined that killing Jews is good and right, why did they do it? Did they have objective moral values telling them that they are wrong, and they ignored these morals?

What about the earlier examples. The societies who considered human sacrifice to be peak morality. If objective morality is really universal, how could an entire society not only ignore it, but not even know it existed. How can it be objective if they don't even know about it?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

And who sets this objective morality?

 

[Dogna88]

Murder.
Murder is different from killing.
I can kill someone completely accidently. No intent.
Murder is with intent.

Murder is a legal construct.

Man made concept determined by the societies law.

Thats why abortion is not "murder"

It may be "unjustified killing" but that is subjective and debatable

 

[Hacky McAxe]

We'll just go with a much more basic question to gauge future discussion. Is it possible that morality was not derived from God?

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

Murder is a legal construct.

Man made concept determined by the societies law.

Thats why abortion is not "murder"

It may be "unjustified killing" but that is subjective and debatable

Which society?
Which man?
The difference between the 2 is INTENT.

" In Queensland, murder is defined as the wilful taking of another individual’s life. The key term here is “wilful,” meaning there was an actual and demonstrable intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

Manslaughter refers to when a person causes the death of another individual, but it does not rise to the definition of murder, by virtue of the fact that there was no intent or reckless indifference involved. Where a person has not intended to cause the death, and they did not cause the death with an action they knew would probably lead to death, manslaughter will be the appropriate charge."

Criminal Defence Lawyers Brisbane - Criminal Lawyers Brisbane | Beavon

Looking for Brisbane's leading criminal defence lawyers representing clients Australia wide? Get started with Beavon Lawyers here - dependable defence 24/7.

russolawyers.com.au

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

Each would be morally wrong to the other.

If Society A determined that killing Jews is good and right, why did they do it? Did they have objective moral values telling them that they are wrong, and they ignored these morals?

What about the earlier examples. The societies who considered human sacrifice to be peak morality. If objective morality is really universal, how could an entire society not only ignore it, but not even know it existed. How can it be objective if they don't even know about it?

The question then is which society is ULTIMATELY right?
If there is no OM, then NEITHER society is ULTIMATELY right.
If neither if right, then it is incoherent to label say what society A does as wrong simply because you do not have a standard (fact) above both societies.

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

We'll just go with a much more basic question to gauge future discussion. Is it possible that morality was not derived from God?

My argument the whole time is, if it did not derive from God, then it is a man made concept. Completely subjective.
Neither mans morality is more correct than any others.
This is what subjective morality means.

 

[Dogna88]

Which society?
Which man?
The difference between the 2 is INTENT.

" In Queensland, murder is defined as the wilful taking of another individual’s life. The key term here is “wilful,” meaning there was an actual and demonstrable intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.

Manslaughter refers to when a person causes the death of another individual, but it does not rise to the definition of murder, by virtue of the fact that there was no intent or reckless indifference involved. Where a person has not intended to cause the death, and they did not cause the death with an action they knew would probably lead to death, manslaughter will be the appropriate charge."

Criminal Defence Lawyers Brisbane - Criminal Lawyers Brisbane | Beavon

Looking for Brisbane's leading criminal defence lawyers representing clients Australia wide? Get started with Beavon Lawyers here - dependable defence 24/7.

russolawyers.com.au

No.

I can have intent to kill someone when defending myself (all things proportionate of course). Thats not murder.

I can not be found guilty of murder for that.

 

[Northern Beaches dog]

Murder is a legal construct.

Man made concept determined by the societies law.

Thats why abortion is not "murder"

It may be "unjustified killing" but that is subjective and debatable

Further to this, man just redefined what a fetus to not mean life. If it is not life or human then it is not murder.
This is what the Nazis did to the Jews. They defined the Jews to be sub human to justify there murder of them and to supress there guilt.
This is also what tribes do in the jungle where they eat each other.