Evidence for God from Science

Hi, I'm a non christian and would like to know how christians view the issue of morality.Is there an absolute standard whereby he/she abides to ? If so, how does a christian derive these standards to which he/she then strive to abide to?

Also, it would seem that christians seem to hold the view that morals are absolute values, I however take the view that moral values are relative and depend on various factor of a given era.

How can a christian show to a agnostic like me that moral values are absolute and immutable.

Rather then begin a war and say to you that "you're wrong, I'm right" and then you can return "nuh-ahh, you're wrong!" and so on we go only perhaps in more sophisticated language... let me just run a few scenarios by you and get your response to them. I've actually gone through this elsewhere on the board, but I don't mind starting from scratch here again as it was kind of jumbled in amongst other conversations. Anyway, the first scenario:

• A white workmate is helping an African-American workmate to unravel a problem in the computer database. You overhear the white worker in his frustration call the African American a dumb n*****. She looks up with hurt on her face. You denounce the white worker for being prejudiced and for hurting her feelings.

Given such a scenario actually took place, would you feel comfortable denouncing, or making the kind of judgement made in this scenario?

Kurieuo.

Hi Kurieuo

I must say that I do not see the relevance of your question. Perhaps it will become apparent later.
To answer your question, I would not feel comfortable doing either. But if forced to choose one or the other, I would take denouncing over the racist remark.

basic moral values are absolute. there are psychological studies to back this up: studies demonstrating that pre-verbal children have an understanding of right/wrong.

even serial killers (who derive pleasure from killing) know that what they are doing is wrong.

if our basic moral values are determined by the era or culture, there would have been a few societies by now that condoned murder, rape, sex with children, stealing, etc. everyone everywhere has always known these things to be wrong (even our daumers and ted bundy's).

You wouldn't feel comfortable doing either, as in 1) staying quiet or 2) denouncing and thereby making a judgement? Or do you mean you'd simply stay quiet?

I personally think I'd say something regardless, as I believe such was wrong and uncalled for, and I'd perhaps try to weed out later with my workmate where the remark may have come from.

Kurieuo.

Hi Nameless,

Do you believe in any absolutes?

To Colors

pre-verbal children have an understanding of right/wrong

I dont see how this implies moral absolutism. For me, I would interpret this disposition of pre-verbal children as a natural product of evolution. A simple justification for this would be children which have a natural instinct for 'right or wrong' are easier to teach, and such favouring the species propagation. The contention is that I view 'right' being suitable for the continuation of the species and 'wrong' being unsuitable for it. Since suitability varies with the enviornment, I therefore claim that right and wrong varies with the enviornment.

if our basic moral values are determined by the era or culture, there would have been a few societies by now that condoned murder, rape, sex with children, stealing, etc. everyone everywhere has always known these things to be wrong

Since the world today is homogeneous, you would not expect to see large deviation from what is the standard social norm, condoning of killings etc. I think prior to our present cultural globalization, there are a few examples such as :

There were indian religion which didnt mind burning their wives as sacrifices..

The mongolians also didnt see any problem in raping women of their enemy.

The german society of 1940s condoned the culling of the jews.

even serial killers (who derive pleasure from killing) know that what they are doing is wrong.

Killing is not view as immoral by cannibal tribes in africa.


My argument may be abit sketchy, its just to roughly outline my position. So feel free to pick away at my argument.

To Kurieuo

Sorry, but I've misunderstood your question. In that case my answer would be I would just keep quiet, and would not be comfortable denouncing the person.

To August

I'm not sure about that, I'll have to think about it.




[/quote]

I'm wondering what you'd think of another scenario:

• A friend of yours announces to you and your best mate that she is getting divorced. She has fallen in love with another man, and although she has two children, she has told her husband she cannot continue to live a lie. Her husband and children are crushed, but she feels she must be true to herself. Your best friend charges her with selfishness, lack of loyalty, and willingness to hurt others' feelings.

Would you agree with the response of your best friend, or do you think it uncalled for? What would be your thoughts if you faced such a situation, and would you say or do anything?

Kurieuo.

nameless wrote:There were indian religion which didnt mind burning their wives as sacrifices..

The mongolians also didnt see any problem in raping women of their enemy.

The german society of 1940s condoned the culling of the jews.

You're right, this is perfectly acceptible. There is nothing really wrong with such things—they're moral conduct was just different to much of ours today. Infact there is nothing really morally better about Hitler than Mother Teresa is there?

nameless wrote:Killing is not view as immoral by cannibal tribes in africa.

I thought cannibals only ate people, not that they necessarily accepted killing (murder?). Are you telling us that they wouldn't see anything wrong with someone killing their family or slaughtering their tribe just for fun?

Kurieuo.

Would you agree with the response of your best friend, or do you think it uncalled for? What would be your thoughts if you faced such a situation, and would you say or do anything?

Being a friend, I would support to her decision, while at the same time adding in word of caution to her, such as asking her whether she is prepared to leave her kids and deal with other consequences of her actions...

Infact there is nothing really morally better about Hitler than Mother Teresa is there?

Well it depends from whose prespective you look from. I'm sure a staunch christian would not agree with this. I on the other hand happen to agree with you on this point.

I thought cannibals only ate people, not that they necessarily accepted killing (murder?).

Well before you eat them, you need to kill them. I implicitly assumed that colors position was that killing was wrong per se. Whether or not it is out of neccessity or just for deriving pleasure.

Are you telling us that they wouldn't see anything wrong with someone killing their family or slaughtering their tribe just for fun?

Obviously the tribe will see something wrong about its member being killed.

A little feedback to the discussion, I think you tend to ask some superfluos questions at times, which sort of delays the speed at which this discussion will progress. Hope you dont take this negatively, as I'm trying to offer some constructive criticism[/quote]

^lol

Nameless, if you were overcharged when you went shopping, would you accept the explanation that you are just contributing to the profits of the shop?

Nameless, if you were overcharged when you went shopping, would you accept the explanation that you are just contributing to the profits of the shop?

No.

nameless,

it's extremely easy to pick away at your argument. first of all, you countered:

I don't see how this implies moral absolutism. For me, I would interpret this disposition of pre-verbal children as a natural product of evolution. A simple justification for this would be children which have a natural instinct for 'right/wrong' are easier to teach...

i could say two things about this:

1) humans have no instincts.
2) this "instinct" that these children are born with is moral absolutism--a basic understanding of right/wrong. so you're actually agreeing with me in a funny way.

also, on all the other stuff:

there are small anamolous groups/societies everywhere that deviate from the norm--not enough, however, to back any statement implying that basic morals are cultural.

in our world society today there are groups which condone murder, rape, etc., but these groups continue to be ostracized by the greater population. if you wanted to start an argument that morals were cultural, you'd be better off pointing out a time in history where a majority of populations/cultures have deviated from basics of right/wrong, e.g. a time when many cultures have accepted, condoned, practiced, and taught murder, rape, or torture, etc. as "good" practices.

nameless wrote:A little feedback to the discussion, I think you tend to ask some superfluos questions at times, which sort of delays the speed at which this discussion will progress. Hope you dont take this negatively, as I'm trying to offer some constructive criticism

They may appear superfluous as I am not particularly out to change your mind, but to encourage thinking on certain matters. My questions help to reveal your own consistency with relativism, and your own intuition regarding certain aspects of morality.

nameless wrote:

K wrote:Would you agree with the response of your best friend, or do you think it uncalled for? What would be your thoughts if you faced such a situation, and would you say or do anything?

Being a friend, I would support to her decision, while at the same time adding in word of caution to her, such as asking her whether she is prepared to leave her kids and deal with other consequences of her actions...

What of your best friend's judgement who within the scenario charged her with selfishness, a lack of loyalty and willingness to hurt other people's feelings—would you agree with them?

Caution is generally only required if there is something wrong further down the track. What reason is there to caution her? Why not caution her that if she stayed with her husband, then she might continue to be unhappy living a lie. Thus, why not encourage her to break away from her family, and go with the new guy?

nameless wrote:

K wrote:Infact there is nothing really morally better about Hitler than Mother Teresa is there?

Well it depends from whose prespective you look from. I'm sure a staunch christian would not agree with this. I on the other hand happen to agree with you on this point.

Interesting how it could be said Mother Teresa is morally worse than Hitler by some, while she is morally better by others. Who is right—one, both, neither? Wouldn't it be ignorant of one side, namely those who think Teresa is morally better than Hitler, to persuade others to think so? What of justice? There wouldn't have been any real justice when Nazi war criminals were morally prejudiced against and prosecuted. And what of all those highly moral rapists, murderers and child molestors behind bars? They are victims of moral intollerance!

nameless wrote:

K wrote:I thought cannibals only ate people, not that they necessarily accepted killing (murder?).

Well before you eat them, you need to kill them. I implicitly assumed that colors position was that killing was wrong per se. Whether or not it is out of neccessity or just for deriving pleasure.

I think perhaps you just committed a converse accident. Just because in "some" cases, a group of people may think killing is acceptable, does not mean in "all" cases the same people will think killing is acceptible.

nameless wrote:

K wrote: Are you telling us that they wouldn't see anything wrong with someone killing their family or slaughtering their tribe just for fun?

Obviously the tribe will see something wrong about its member being killed.

So then, the tribe actually would agree with me (or us?), that there are actual situations where killing is not morally acceptable? Now I'm left wondering what your point was in saying, "Killing is not viewed as immoral by cannibal tribes in africa"?

Kurieuo.