Evidence for God from Science

This post is meant to really be a primer and tester for when I actually have the time to present my full case on morality - I don't yet feel ready to put that much up.

But, I should like to get the basic question of ethics out of the way: What is morality, what does it mean to be moral?

A good definition is morality as the set of principles that describe what we ought and ought not do. But that's not very descriptive nor helpful. What then, ought we or ought not we do? There's a few examples. Some say we ought follow God's word, some say we should do what is 'best' for humanity/life (whatever 'best' is), some say we should only do what is 'best' for ourselves (whatever that may be). But then, the difficult and inevitable question follows: Why? What is that to me? Or, as PaulS would say.. sez who? Also, what clues do we have as to what morality actually is and how can we know?

I'd like to get some answers from this group, because I suspect not everyone adheres to the same natural law as Jac does. I would also like to know why some think morality is objective, what their definition of 'value' is, and I'll probably come up with more questions as I get answers.

mo·ral·i·ty
   [muh-ral-i-tee, maw-] Show IPA
noun, plural mo·ral·i·ties for 4–6.
1.
conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
2.
moral quality or character.
3.
virtue in sexual matters; chastity.
4.
a doctrine or system of morals.
5.
moral instruction; a moral lesson, precept, discourse, or utterance

World English Dictionary
morality (məˈrælɪtɪ)

— n , pl -ties
1. the quality of being moral
2. conformity, or degree of conformity, to conventional standards of moral conduct
3. a system of moral principles
4. an instruction or lesson in morals
5. short for morality play

which leads us to:

mor·al
   [mawr-uhl, mor-] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2.
expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3.
founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4.
capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5.
conforming to the rules of right conduct ( opposed to immoral): a moral man.

World English Dictionary
moral (ˈmÉ’rəl)

— adj
1. concerned with or relating to human behaviour, esp the distinction between good and bad or right and wrong behaviour: moral sense
2. adhering to conventionally accepted standards of conduct
3. based on a sense of right and wrong according to conscience: moral courage ; moral law
4. having psychological rather than tangible effects: moral support
5. having the effects but not the appearance of (victory or defeat): a moral victory ; a moral defeat
6. having a strong probability: a moral certainty
7. law (of evidence, etc) based on a knowledge of the tendencies of human nature

In short, morality is about being moral which is about knowing the difference between right and wrong and acting based on the knowledge.
In short, doing the right thing.

PaulSacramento wrote:In short, morality is about being moral which is about knowing the difference between right and wrong and acting based on the knowledge.
In short, doing the right thing.

Yes, but then, what IS the right thing, how do we know, and what is it to us? The right thing is usually defined as the thing we ought to do, but those questions remain.

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:In short, morality is about being moral which is about knowing the difference between right and wrong and acting based on the knowledge.
In short, doing the right thing.

Yes, but then, what IS the right thing, how do we know, and what is it to us? The right thing is usually defined as the thing we ought to do, but those questions remain.

Ah, that is THE question isn't it?
There are many guide lines of course and different cultures and societies have different "gray areas" or "cut-offs".
One society may view infanticide as a horrific thing and NOT right in any way and another society may view it quite correct for the benefit of the whole ( The needs/wants of the one are outweighed by the needs of the many).
One society may view women as hav9ing equal rights and another as that being just plain wrong.
So, a person acting withing the constraints of THAT society is behaving morally in THAT society.

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:In short, morality is about being moral which is about knowing the difference between right and wrong and acting based on the knowledge.
In short, doing the right thing.

Yes, but then, what IS the right thing, how do we know, and what is it to us? The right thing is usually defined as the thing we ought to do, but those questions remain.

Everyone has a conscience that speaks to him. Those that believe in God, believe God tells us what's moral. I suppose those that don't believe in God, make up their own morals, follow morals passed down to them from family, or follow morals of society.

RickD wrote:

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:In short, morality is about being moral which is about knowing the difference between right and wrong and acting based on the knowledge.
In short, doing the right thing.

Yes, but then, what IS the right thing, how do we know, and what is it to us? The right thing is usually defined as the thing we ought to do, but those questions remain.

Everyone has a conscience that speaks to him. Those that believe in God, believe God tells us what's moral. I suppose those that don't believe in God, make up their own morals, follow morals passed down to them from family, or follow morals of society.

Do you think a belief in God is necessary for a conscience to function? And, again, what does it mean to do the right thing? What goal is being accomplished?

PaulSacramento wrote:Ah, that is THE question isn't it?
There are many guide lines of course and different cultures and societies have different "gray areas" or "cut-offs".
One society may view infanticide as a horrific thing and NOT right in any way and another society may view it quite correct for the benefit of the whole ( The needs/wants of the one are outweighed by the needs of the many).
One society may view women as hav9ing equal rights and another as that being just plain wrong.
So, a person acting withing the constraints of THAT society is behaving morally in THAT society.

So, in a society, it would seem to you that morals are just arbitrarily decided on based on whatever cultural whims and fancies happen to be popular? Also, assume we're considering what is moral among all of human society, what then is moral?

Beanybag wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Ah, that is THE question isn't it?
There are many guide lines of course and different cultures and societies have different "gray areas" or "cut-offs".
One society may view infanticide as a horrific thing and NOT right in any way and another society may view it quite correct for the benefit of the whole ( The needs/wants of the one are outweighed by the needs of the many).
One society may view women as hav9ing equal rights and another as that being just plain wrong.
So, a person acting withing the constraints of THAT society is behaving morally in THAT society.

So, in a society, it would seem to you that morals are just arbitrarily decided on based on whatever cultural whims and fancies happen to be popular? Also, assume we're considering what is moral among all of human society, what then is moral?

Nope, not cultural whims, but by which ever group is in power and based on how they dictate to the minority.
That is how things TEND to be but not how they are suppose to be.
If we do look back/deep enough into even the most "moral-less" society or culture, you will still find a set moral and that morals tends to be "lets be good to ourselves, regardless of how we treat others".
There is still this sense of "not fair" when something bad happens to Us or is done to Us, even if we have no problems in doing it to others.

Do you think a belief in God is necessary for a conscience to function?

No, everyone has a conscience. Some just learn to ignore their conscience, while others listen to it.

PaulSacramento wrote:Nope, not cultural whims, but by which ever group is in power and based on how they dictate to the minority.
That is how things TEND to be but not how they are suppose to be.
If we do look back/deep enough into even the most "moral-less" society or culture, you will still find a set moral and that morals tends to be "lets be good to ourselves, regardless of how we treat others".
There is still this sense of "not fair" when something bad happens to Us or is done to Us, even if we have no problems in doing it to others.

I suppose I should maybe try and lead you with the questioning a little bit, I'm not sure if we're getting to the answer. Unless, perhaps, you think what is good is beyond our understanding? Do you think what you ought to do should have any considerations on the future? Or should it only have considerations with respect to the action? Or perhaps neither/both?

Why do you think societies have morals? Do those in power only wish to control the minority? Is a sense of fairness irrational? Are double-standards irrational? What ought a society do?

RickD wrote:

Do you think a belief in God is necessary for a conscience to function?

No, everyone has a conscience. Some just learn to ignore their conscience, while others listen to it.

Okay. So our conscience tells us what to do and what not to do. How do we know if we're listening to it or not? How can we tell if an action is right or wrong? Is it only through the nature of feeling our conscience - if an action feels right and moral then it is right and moral, so long as we are listening to our conscience? Should morality be concerned with the future or should it be concerned with the nature of an action and the feeling of rightness that confirms its morality?

Okay. So our conscience tells us what to do and what not to do. How do we know if we're listening to it or not? How can we tell if an action is right or wrong? Is it only through the nature of feeling our conscience - if an action feels right and moral then it is right and moral, so long as we are listening to our conscience? Should morality be concerned with the future or should it be concerned with the nature of an action and the feeling of rightness that confirms its morality?

I'm not saying that our conscience is the only way we can know what's right and wrong. I believe morality is objective, so I may be too biased to answer your questions. While I think atheists can certainly be moral people, they really have no basis for objective morality. If there's no objective morality, then right and wrong is only subjective. My right would be no better than your right. Ultimately, without God, morality is meaningless.

RickD wrote:

Okay. So our conscience tells us what to do and what not to do. How do we know if we're listening to it or not? How can we tell if an action is right or wrong? Is it only through the nature of feeling our conscience - if an action feels right and moral then it is right and moral, so long as we are listening to our conscience? Should morality be concerned with the future or should it be concerned with the nature of an action and the feeling of rightness that confirms its morality?

I'm not saying that our conscience is the only way we can know what's right and wrong. I believe morality is objective, so I may be too biased to answer your questions. While I think atheists can certainly be moral people, they really have no basis for objective morality. If there's no objective morality, then right and wrong is only subjective. My right would be no better than your right. Ultimately, without God, morality is meaningless.

Your morality can be objective, I'm simply trying to have it defined. If it is the same as Jac's morality in that it is defined as the rational and ordered action according the natural forms and essences, then I'll have to let it be for now.

Now, you (as most theists tend to do) seem to assert that subjective morality immediately leads to moral relativism. That's fine for now, you can hold that belief, but in my later thread I will battle this notion as best as I can. Also, subjective morality is not even incompatible with theism - God does not necessarily create objective morality. For now, I am just trying to get an understanding of what you think morality is. So, what makes an action moral? Where does our conscience (whatever it may be) get morality from?

Your morality can be objective, I'm simply trying to have it defined. If it is the same as Jac's morality in that it is defined as the rational and ordered action according the natural forms and essences, then I'll have to let it be for now.

To be honest, I may believe in jac's morality, but I'm not sure I really understand what he's saying.

Now, you (as most theists tend to do) seem to assert that subjective morality immediately leads to moral relativism. That's fine for now, you can hold that belief, but in my later thread I will battle this notion as best as I can. Also, subjective morality is not even incompatible with theism - God does not necessarily create objective morality. For now, I am just trying to get an understanding of what you think morality is. So, what makes an action moral? Where does our conscience (whatever it may be) get morality from?

If one only believes in subjective morality, and objective morality doesn't exist, then I don't see how we would have anything but moral relativism. As for God creating objective morality, I wouldn't exactly put it that way. I'm not really sure I can explain it properly by saying God is good, and anything he deems morally right, is right. What God says is wrong, is objectively wrong, as well. God created man, and knows what's best for man.
As for what makes something morally right or wrong, in those cases that we are talking about objective morality, I defer to my creator. I believe our conscience is part of our spirit that God has given us. Our spirit not only allows us to understand spiritual things, but it allows man to be an everlasting being. Different from any other physical being that God created.

RickD wrote:If one only believes in subjective morality, and objective morality doesn't exist, then I don't see how we would have anything but moral relativism. As for God creating objective morality, I wouldn't exactly put it that way. I'm not really sure I can explain it properly by saying God is good, and anything he deems morally right, is right. What God says is wrong, is objectively wrong, as well. God created man, and knows what's best for man.
As for what makes something morally right or wrong, in those cases that we are talking about objective morality, I defer to my creator. I believe our conscience is part of our spirit that God has given us. Our spirit not only allows us to understand spiritual things, but it allows man to be an everlasting being. Different from any other physical being that God created.

Well, I tend to like the Euthyphro dilemma and other such examples to try and help find what people actually believe is moral. I personally find Jac's idea of morality, while escaping the dilemma entirely, to fall somewhat on both ends but rather confusingly only on one end or the other depending on how God is being described at the time - I find it kind of messy, but I'm still trying to understand it. To help me understand, do you agree with the tenants of divine simplicity?

For instance (back to the dilemma), setting aside the fact that it's impossible for God to command an immoral act, if God commanded you to rape and kill a small child, would that act necessarily be moral? Wouldn't our conscience tell us that that would be immoral? Is what is moral moral because God says so? Or, is morality something else such that we can know a moral action without knowing God - is morality outside of God?

And some other questions to help me understand: Setting aside the fact that it's impossible for God to lie or be untrue, if God were to say A = !A, would that be a lie or would the law of non-contradiction be invalidated? If the Bible said A = !A would the bible's inerrancy be invalidated or would the law of non-contradiction be invalidated?

Morality is the conduct of any rational agent insofar as it is considered under the ideal of what is right or fitting behavior. As such, we need to distinguish it from ethics, which is the science or morality. In other words, morality is one's code of conduct. All of us have one whether we have done the hard work of developing a proper ethics or not, and that is necessarily the case. Ethics is a practical philosophy (as opposed to theoretical philosophy); ideally, upon reaching our conclusions in studying ethics, we will modify our morals to the degree that they do not line up with our ethical conclusions.

I make that distinction because I don't know when you ask the question which you are talking about. Are you asking what morality is or what ethics is?

You'll hear people (me among them) constantly saying that morals are objective. That is true. The problem that non-theists have is how to ground this objective morality in such a way that recognizes and keeps it objective! The moment we accept the fact that morals are a personal code of conduct, the question becomes, "Why ought my morality be this rather than that?" Or, put differently, "What binds me to hold this moral rather than that?" In the case of things like math, the answer is obvious: reason itself, and that due to the nature of reality. How we answer that question with regard to our morals has to do with our ethical system. What you will find us arguing here (I think correctly) is that there is no objective grounding for our moral systems in a non-theistic framework. Most non-theists tend toward some sort of utilitarian ethics (cf. J.S. Mill), but you'll find that most of us think that fails. Some Christians tend toward Kant's deontology. I, and several of us here, think that fails as well.

Anyway, I think I've said enough so far. I've already asked you a question and then went on after that and rambled a bit, so let me just let you answer the question while you continue your discussion with everyone else.