Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Studys on the possible development of certain traits from an evolutionary perspective do not make any comments on the morality of the act. Moral codes function to stabilize societies, they are there to create a social contract between an individual and the society in which he lives.

In other words an Athiest will not say rape is fine because we are biologically inclined to do so.

And a Japanese will not say that morality does not mean anything because it does'nt have the authority of God behind it.

This is better. While I believe God is the grounding of morality as a Christian, all I have been arguing for is that morality needs to be grounded in an objective way to really have meaning. Whether evolution, or social constructs, although they may allow moral rules to be constructed, are enough to ground morality in an objectively meaningful way is something to be debated. Although I am open to considering them as a source of objectivity, even if I think they lack sufficient reason not to toss them aside.

Agreed.

Kurieuo wrote:For example, those who admit that objective moral laws must exist, but contend we discover them as part of the universe, or they just happened to evolve... such moral laws need not be obeyed once we find out they were just accidents. Moral laws are in a sense commands on what to do and what not to do, and if they came about by accident and we find out they did, then as we wise up they no longer become something we need to abide by. Personal gain becomes our only imperative.

I disagree, only because 1.) You seem to be saying without a basis for morality that people are inherently evil. I categorically disagree.
And 2.) even if someone were to beleive that morality is only a social construct they could not obtain personal gains outside of society thus forcing them back into a social contract.

Kurieuo wrote:

BGood wrote: It is not a shot at your ignorance or some sort of jibe, you stated you based your opinions on your own experiences and beliefs.

I don't believe I stated such a thing. Rather if I am to be consistent with myself (and other people are to be consistent with theirself) then we need to embrace moral values being as true as physical objects. For we certainly act like certain actions are really wrong, while other acts are good and admirable, and that people ought to have certain moral values and be bound by certain moral rules.

Agreed.

Kurieuo wrote:

BGood wrote:This information could be used as evidence against the opinion of this thread that morality does not exist without God.

I'm not sure I agree, since one has to assume God does not exist in order to claim that morality as we understand it can exist without God (which begs the question). However, "my" argument isn't that morality can't exist without God, only that any sensible morality needs an objective foundation whether that is found in God or by something else such as Kant's categorical imperatives and ones duty to follow them. Longer discussion needs to be carried out over whether foundations other than God are sufficient. Many appear to think they are not, and so in resistence to God, embrace moral relativism at the expense of what I think is a meaningful and sensible objective morality.

Perhaps, but if entire societies have no problems with suicide, then I need to discover why this is so.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:For example, those who admit that objective moral laws must exist, but contend we discover them as part of the universe, or they just happened to evolve... such moral laws need not be obeyed once we find out they were just accidents. Moral laws are in a sense commands on what to do and what not to do, and if they came about by accident and we find out they did, then as we wise up they no longer become something we need to abide by. Personal gain becomes our only imperative.

I disagree, only because 1.) You seem to be saying without a basis for morality that people are inherently evil. I categorically disagree.

Where? Without a basis for morality I am saying concepts of good and evil (or to use less theological langage "bad") doesn't even make sense!

BGood wrote:And 2.) even if someone were to beleive that morality is only a social construct they could not obtain personal gains outside of society thus forcing them back into a social contract.

Even Freud admitted many will become unsatisfied if the wealth of society is unfairly distributed. If a person's personal gain within society isn't enough to satisfy their desire, then problems are bound to occur...

BGood wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

BGood wrote:It is not a shot at your ignorance or some sort of jibe, you stated you based your opinions on your own experiences and beliefs.

I don't believe I stated such a thing. Rather if I am to be consistent with myself (and other people are to be consistent with theirself) then we need to embrace moral values being as true as physical objects. For we certainly act like certain actions are really wrong, while other acts are good and admirable, and that people ought to have certain moral values and be bound by certain moral rules.

Agreed.

Great. I think I can rest then, unless I wish to push God as being the only sufficient grounding.

BGood wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

BGood wrote:This information could be used as evidence against the opinion of this thread that morality does not exist without God.

I'm not sure I agree, since one has to assume God does not exist in order to claim that morality as we understand it can exist without God (which begs the question). However, "my" argument isn't that morality can't exist without God, only that any sensible morality needs an objective foundation whether that is found in God or by something else such as Kant's categorical imperatives and ones duty to follow them. Longer discussion needs to be carried out over whether foundations other than God are sufficient. Many appear to think they are not, and so in resistence to God, embrace moral relativism at the expense of what I think is a meaningful and sensible objective morality.

Perhaps, but if entire societies have no problems with suicide, then I need to discover why this is so.

And I would say objectivism provides nice foundations for the belief that helping others with their problems is the morally right and virtuous thing to do. If you can't embrace God, I'd certainly encourage you to more freely embrace an objective morality.

Kurieuo

Kurieuo wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:I disagree, only because 1.) You seem to be saying without a basis for morality that people are inherently evil. I categorically disagree.

Where? Without a basis for morality I am saying concepts of good and evil (or to use less theological langage "bad") doesn't even make sense!

The concepts of good and bad may exist on their own and form the foundation of moral frameworks.

Kurieuo wrote:

BGood wrote:And 2.) even if someone were to beleive that morality is only a social construct they could not obtain personal gains outside of society thus forcing them back into a social contract.

Even Freud admitted many will become unsatisfied if the wealth of society is unfairly distributed. If a person's personal gain within society isn't enough to satisfy their desire, then problems are bound to occur...

In any society under God or not there have always been disparities in distribution of wealth.

Kurieuo wrote:

BGood wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I don't believe I stated such a thing. Rather if I am to be consistent with myself (and other people are to be consistent with theirself) then we need to embrace moral values being as true as physical objects. For we certainly act like certain actions are really wrong, while other acts are good and admirable, and that people ought to have certain moral values and be bound by certain moral rules.

Agreed.

Great. I think I can rest then, unless I wish to push God as being the only sufficient grounding.

Heh.
=)

Kurieuo wrote:And I would say objectivism provides nice foundations for the belief that helping others with their problems is the morally right and virtuous thing to do. If you can't embrace God, I'd certainly encourage you to more freely embrace an objective morality.

I absolutely do. However I am forced to hold judgement in certain cases.

Just trying to instigate thought
=)

Not your own thought it seems...

Good and bad cannot possibly exist without God. The consistency of moral "truths" cannot have been created by cultures nor could it have "evolved."

Two key points for those who would like to be enlightened:

C.S. Lewis Mere Christianity

1) No one has ever improved on or introduced a new morality or moral code.
2) "Feeling a desire to help is quite diferent from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not."

I've never understood the reply of, "Well I live without God and I am moral, therefore God is not needed for morality." It doesnt seem to answer the question. If God exists then you are living in His world and even though you are denying Him you are still capable of hearing the moral code within you. I dont believe that one has to believe in the source and cause behind something for it to have an effect on them. To me, the most a fully autonomous person can be is amoral living in a Godless worldview. It cannot be justified either way without simply appealing to one's personal preference.

Even assuming a moral law without God, are we obligated to follow that morality? The only answer I can see already assumes a moral law. Without a final court of appeal above all men morality is simply arbitrary and ultimately a matter of opinion.