German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804 ) was ranked among the "big three" of all time philosophers; Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.My only question so far is "If morality existsthen why must it be from a divine origin rather than being manmade?"
Kant's assertion that that morality could be achieved without God through reason alone has been a failure from the start as best I can find. The moral code can certainly be inserted by government legislation, but the laws themselves are subject to interpretation just as are morals of individuals and groups are today-i.e; "It may be wrong for you, but not for me!" In the book Can Man Live Without God? R. Zacharias writes
His (Kant's) belief that a normative ethic can be arrived at apart from any divine revelation is fraught with philosophical, social, and historical contradictions......The categories of right and wrong emerging from a secular viewpoint find no common ground with cultures whose ethics and political theories are born out of their religious commitment
Religious and secular people know this all too well in the political debates concerning abortion, separation of church and state, the right to exercise religion, etc. To illustrate this a little more, the famous debate between Bertrand Russell and philosopher Frederick Copleston in 1948. Russell was asked by Copleston how he differentiated between right and wrong. Russell replied that he did so by the same basis that he did between yellow and blue. Copleston challenged this analogy by asking how he knew the difference between good and bad. Russell said that he did so on the basis of his feelings. (Roughly quoted from the same book-Can Man live Without God?)
Can you imagine that! Seeing both with the same measure applied ? R. Zacharias makes a very good point here:
Have you noticed that feelings are never defined as being either true or false? Moral absolutes do exist and if anyyone ever says to you that murder is not wrong, then ask yourself if that same person would find that this philosophy would still hold up if the weapon were pointed directly at him. Kant's idea was not livable... period.In some cultures people love their neighbors, in others they eat them, both on the basis of feeling. Would Russell have had a preference?
In my case, I started with the seven deadly sins and began a personal moral inventory based soley on God's moral code given to us in the Holy Bible. Using each sin, I wrote on paper the realities of how I was afflicted. The results were well worth the effortAs part of God's general self-revelation, all people-unless they ignore or suppress their conscience-can and should have basic moral insight, knowing truths generally available to any morally sensitive person (Rm.2:14-15).
We instinctively recognize the wrongness of torturing or murdering the innocent or committing rape. We just know the rightness of virtues (kindness, trustworthiness, unselfishness).A person's failure to recognize these insights reveals something defective:: he hasn't looked deeply enough into the grounds of his moral beliefs
Paul Copen- Does the Moral Argument Show There is a God?
I began to see my self in a more true light and after a few months, a profile began to emerge. A person I didn' t like.
I could have said something like: "All this work made me a better person"-but I didn't believe it . I am certain God was present (Holy Spirit) in showing me how to conform to His will for us and to guide me. That started 17 yrs. ago and I'm still doing a personal inventory yet today . It's amazing how much God will show us about our former selves and steer us away from that "self" and toward His intention for us from the very beginning. It's not that I am a good person, but that by The Holy Spirit as my guide, I really do want to be.
God Bless you JC333 for your question and I hope I have given you something (however small) that you can use.
If I find more, I'll do my best to post it on time. LOL
