Morality and Religion

[aric]

Here's an interesting question I (well actually, it's Socrates) will pose to all of you good denizens of the Temple:

"Is something right because the gods say so? Or, do the gods say something is right because it is right?"

- Aric

[Barry]

You should go here and ask that question.www.evcforum.net/
Or do you think that site is too hardcore for ya.

[Katrina Rix]

Hey, thanks, Dwaggie! This site looks fun! *dusts off debate sword*

[Christopher]

Something is right because God says so...is my position...I had an (very short) arugment, but I have a bad habit of never writing anything down, and forgetting it. And this is one of those cases >.<

Try the site that Dwaggie suggested...it looks right up your alley, plus no one will forget their argument...

[Stouthorn]

It's a tough argument. On the one hand saying that something is right just because God says it can make him seem arbitrary. That is to say, without God's influence, right or wrong may be different. Certainly this seems to be the case when one looks at different societies and different social moralities. There is then nothing intrinsically wrong with a certain act, but it is wrong because of an arbitrary law.

But one must take into account the theological understanding that God is that from which all things flow, thus what God says and what is are one and the same, insoluble.

Genesis is interesting in this respect. Adam and Eve are kicked out of Eden for eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and yet it was eating of that tree that laid the foundation for human advancement, for society, for morality. YHWH is content to have humans in the garden being idle and, let's be honest, pretty dumb, though we are content in our ignorance and all is provided for us. The Tree, then, would seem to suggest an interpretation that, in the Judeochristian tradition, Right and Wrong are intrinsic truths to the universe, and yet they are things that God (note, a limited God in keeping with the polytheistic Judaism of the time and the Babylonian influences on Jewish mythology) that God wishes to keep from us. What, then, are Right and Wrong for?

In certain strains of Gnosticism, the serpent was elevated to the status of "culture hero," a being that allows mankind to throw off the shackles of his own bestial ignorance and become more like the gods. The serpent was Prometheus, who gave man fire. He was Anansi, who decided to release all his wisdom to the world. This way of thinking didn't stick. YHWH, throughout much of the Old Testament, is very much a jealous god, looking to keep his ambitious creations from reaching too high: He casts out Adam and Eve, He thwarts the Tower of Babel, He imprisons the Grigori and Azazel for teaching man rudimentary science and engineering, and many Biblical scholars believe the flood was intended to wipe out the Nephilim - heroic, powerful offspring of angels and humans who, like the half-gods of Greek mythology, did great things.

Why punish us for this?

It would seem that this knowledge of Right and Wrong are necessary to advancement, but also cause much suffering. According to Jewish and Christian theology, it's not worth it. We'd be better off in the Garden, in Paradise, living alongside the rest of God's creation. It's debateable, but it seems to be the position. Right and Wrong is not a human affair, but something for the divine to worry about. In gaining consciousness like God, we must also put up with the crap He has to.

Of course, are there times when men are called upon to do things usually considered wrong? Sure. Are there times, even in religious texts, where God does some questionable things? Sure. Kierkegard tended to believe that doubt was necessary to faith, and he prized the "leap of faith," the surrender of rational thought - even the rejection thereof - in the face of faith. The implication here is that the true measure of "right" and "wrong" is unknowable to us, that human morality, while most likely pleasing to God, does not always hold God in its thrall. He liked to bring up the example of Abraham being told to sacrifice his son, Isaac. Me? I tend to refute Kierkegaard's thoughts on this act by pointing out that God never actually requires this sacrifice, merely Abraham's show of faith, thus God never requires said deviation from the moral.

[aric]

Ah Stouthorn, I have come to expect great and wise posts from you!

stouthorn said:

It's a tough argument. On the one hand saying that something is right just because God says it can make him seem arbitrary. That is to say, without God's influence, right or wrong may be different.

Might it also be that what determines right and wrong comes from somewhere else? According to some sources I read on the internet (I think one of them was Wiki, but don’t hold that against me!), the ancient Greeks sometimes separated religion from morality. Plato and Socrates were philosophers foremost, and yet they commented on the nature of morality as well. With gods that raped and murdered, I doubt one could readily say that they were determinants of moral justice.

And that leads to the underlying implication of that question that Socrates asked. Is God (or gods) necessary for morality to exist? And further, do you need to believe in God or gods in order to be a moral person? If it is, then are atheists fundamentally immoral? Or are they moral because they follow the spirit of God’s alleged teachings even though they don’t believe in God himself? Or again, is it even necessary to believe in a God or gods for morality to exist and function properly?

stouthorn said:

Certainly this seems to be the case when one looks at different societies and different social moralities. There is then nothing intrinsically wrong with a certain act, but it is wrong because of an arbitrary law.

Are the laws arbitrary? Or are there good non-divine reasons why some of those laws exist?

I can’t think of a good reason for legal slavery. But, I can think of a good reason why murder should be outlawed. Namely, that I don’t want to get murdered. And I’d like the perpetrator who does happen to murder me to be punished in some way. I join a society for the protection it gives me.

I also wonder what the world’s cultures generally stand on murder. Is it generally forbidden in some forms? Undoubtedly, murder does get sanctioned in some cases, but has there been cultures where murder was never wrong or forbidden?

stouthorn said:

But one must take into account the theological understanding that God is that from which all things flow, thus what God says and what is are one and the same, insoluble.

I think, at least in an indirect way, that’s what Socrates was questioning. Or at least, that’s how I can interpret his question.

“Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?”

stouthorn said:

It would seem that this knowledge of Right and Wrong are necessary to advancement, but also cause much suffering.

How does conceiving right and wrong cause suffering? I never really got this when listening to people talk about this from the Bible.

stouthorn said:

According to Jewish and Christian theology, it's not worth it. We'd be better off in the Garden, in Paradise, living alongside the rest of God's creation. It's debateable, but it seems to be the position. Right and Wrong is not a human affair, but something for the divine to worry about. In gaining consciousness like God, we must also put up with the crap He has to.

So, due to Adam and Eve’s brunch with the Fruit of Knowledge, our ability to reason and figure out right from wrong is somewhere along the lines of God’s? At least, from the Old Testament’s point of view?

stouthorn said:

Of course, are there times when men are called upon to do things usually considered wrong? Sure. Are there times, even in religious texts, where God does some questionable things? Sure. Kierkegard tended to believe that doubt was necessary to faith, and he prized the "leap of faith," the surrender of rational thought - even the rejection thereof - in the face of faith. The implication here is that the true measure of "right" and "wrong" is unknowable to us, that human morality, while most likely pleasing to God, does not always hold God in its thrall. He liked to bring up the example of Abraham being told to sacrifice his son, Isaac. Me? I tend to refute Kierkegaard's thoughts on this act by pointing out that God never actually requires this sacrifice, merely Abraham's show of faith, thus God never requires said deviation from the moral.

So, you think God is bound by morality?

dwaggie67 said:

You should go here and ask that question.www.evcforum.net/
Or do you think that site is too hardcore for ya.

Never saw that site before. I browsed through it just now and it does seem right up my alley. However, the fundamental problem I find here seems to be just as present there. There seems to be an unwillingness to enforce logical debate. The fact that you can have an entire message board regarding evolution versus creationism without having the creationists smacked down within the first few months tells me there’s a high level of tolerance for BS. I might sign up if I think I have anything to contribute, though it seems there are already plenty of people who are willing to step up and challenge creationists.

[Stouthorn]

aric said:

Ah Stouthorn, I have come to expect great and wise posts from you!

Aw, shucks... ::toes dirt::

aric said:

stouthorn said:

It's a tough argument. On the one hand saying that something is right just because God says it can make him seem arbitrary. That is to say, without God's influence, right or wrong may be different.

Might it also be that what determines right and wrong comes from somewhere else? According to some sources I read on the internet (I think one of them was Wiki, but don’t hold that against me!), the ancient Greeks sometimes separated religion from morality. Plato and Socrates were philosophers foremost, and yet they commented on the nature of morality as well. With gods that raped and murdered, I doubt one could readily say that they were determinants of moral justice.

Exactly, which is why a Greek can ask this question, while a Christian or a modern Jew cannot. The question is at direct odds with their theology.

aric said:

And that leads to the underlying implication of that question that Socrates asked. Is God (or gods) necessary for morality to exist? And further, do you need to believe in God or gods in order to be a moral person? If it is, then are atheists fundamentally immoral? Or are they moral because they follow the spirit of God’s alleged teachings even though they don’t believe in God himself? Or again, is it even necessary to believe in a God or gods for morality to exist and function properly?

This would seem to be the underpinning philosophical question. And can you blame him for asking? Greek, and later, Roman religion are terrible. It's no wonder Rome converted to the stability and inspirational teachings of Christianity after millenia of flawed, malicious gods. Plato and Socrates were critical of the religion they lived with because they didn't see the point in it. So really it depends on who you're asking, and believe me those questions you posed arise a lot. As far as I can tell, most ancient religions seem to develop in reverse, beginning with morality and society and ending in theology. Anyway, this has a lot to do with the study you just posted on your other thread.

aric said:

Are the laws arbitrary? Or are there good non-divine reasons why some of those laws exist?

Again, it's sticky when dealing with Judeochristianity. As Katrina Rix posted on another thread, morals are good for society. They help us live together. The thing is, Plato and Socrates can ask these questions because they're dealing with a pantheon of very human gods. Western monotheistic religion, nowadays, has given up the pantheon (they didn't used to) and so God's law, meant to protect and preserve humankind, provides the basis of the society. Of course, the actual development thereof was likely more along the lines of, "Murder is bad, so God clearly wouldn't want it." The ten commandments don't say anything that previous civilizations hadn't been saying already.

aric said:

I can’t think of a good reason for legal slavery. But, I can think of a good reason why murder should be outlawed. Namely, that I don’t want to get murdered. And I’d like the perpetrator who does happen to murder me to be punished in some way. I join a society for the protection it gives me.

Yeah. But most religions then tend to believe that their gods support their laws and way of life. The development of religion and society are pretty intertwined. They feed off each other.

aric said:

I also wonder what the world’s cultures generally stand on murder. Is it generally forbidden in some forms? Undoubtedly, murder does get sanctioned in some cases, but has there been cultures where murder was never wrong or forbidden?

Doubtful. Not even apes stand for that. It causes too many problems. The first murder would immediately cause a societal shift toward law. See Freud's "primitive horde," or even the Greek story of Electra.

aric said:

How does conceiving right and wrong cause suffering? I never really got this when listening to people talk about this from the Bible.

We do not hold animals responsible for their actions, right? Sure, if a dog craps on the carpet, it's inconvenient, but when a male lion takes control of a pride by slaughtering all the male cubs to ensure his genetic dominance, we shrug and say that's what lions do. Animals are innocents. But surely we don't want stuff like that to happen to us! Well, if we had the luxury of not knowing any better...and wanted for nothing...and were perfectly content with our lives...and could walk around naked...that's pretty good. I'll expand on this man as animal thing below. In addition, the Tree doesn't just give you knowledge of right and wrong, but knowledge in general. Think of it as a mythological device: Pandora's Box, Prometheus' Fire, etc...it opens the door to advancement, makes you more than just a dumb beast and you have to take the good with the bad instead of just chill in the Garden with the good. In fact, a lot of society is based on humanity's struggle against the ills of life.

aric said:

So, due to Adam and Eve’s brunch with the Fruit of Knowledge, our ability to reason and figure out right from wrong is somewhere along the lines of God’s? At least, from the Old Testament’s point of view?

Here's a little secret they don't want you to know: there are two separate, contradictory accounts of creation in Genesis. The first one, the one everyone is familiar with, is the one heavily influenced by Babylonian mythology. The one that gets covered up appears second, and is most likely the original creation myth held by the Hebrews. In it, God creates Man, Adam, and then creates a bunch of animals to see what he'd mate with. Adam isn't interested in elephant, or monkey, or snake, or platypus, or thylacine, or platybelodon...in the end what does it for him is woman, Eve. What do we learn? Man is an animal until the Tree.

Looked at as mythology, this is consistent with a lot of other mythologies: the only rational, thinking creatures in the universe are the gods. Man acheives knowledge, and thus becomes like the gods. In polytheistic societies, gods were not God, were not the omnipotent, ommnipresent, omniscient being that YHWH has become over the generations. In fact, the gods were very very anthropomorphic. Thus, in the period in which these myths were written down, our ability to reason was now about as good as YHWH's, but that's cuz YHWH's ability to reason is not mind boggling and astounding.

aric said:

So, you think God is bound by morality?

I think a just God wouldn't require us to believe black is white.

It's a shame Azzy and others probably won't even look at this thread once they see you and I are posting...

[Barry]

Like I said in Aric's other post. (Is Religion Bad for America? Study Says "Maybe") "I read everything you put up"

It's a shame Azzy and others probably won't even look at this thread once they see you and I are posting...

Azzy and some of the others probably do look, but they might not have anything to say. I usually don't say anythang either.

[Stouthorn]

Good to hear. I just hope we don't scare you off.

[takumsaw]

Quote: Man is an animal before the Tree.

I thought that was very interesting. I think Genesis is a metaphor. I have a lot of reasons for that, but I'll just state the simplest one. A 24-hour day is based on the sun's movement across the sky (from the perspective of someone on Earth). In Genesis, God does not create the sun until the third or fourth day. How are the first and second days possible if time did not yet exist? If Genesis is viewed as a metaphor, this is easier to understand. Creation was a much, much slower process from this perspective, taking billions of years. Perhaps even the Tree, the Garden, and the Fruit are metaphorical too. Before civilization, the entire Earth was in it's natural state. This could be Eden. Eden is supposedly derived from the Sumerian word "edin" meaning "uncultivated land." Before human civilization, all of the Earth was "edin". The Fruit could be a metaphor for the one thing that separated us from the rest of God's creations. It could have been the ability to use fire, perhaps. Once we were able to move on, we could never go back to living in "edin." Being human also allowed us to do terrible things to ourselves and our planet. Thus, the Fall. Anyway, this is just my opinion, please reply soon.

[Stouthorn]

Interesting points, all. I happen to agree, and think I did what I could to interpret Genesis as a creation myth in my posts. The discussion here is not on whether or not Genesis is a myth, however, but on what the story of Genesis reveals about the Judaeo-Christian philosophy on morality, as it relates to the question in the thread's initial post.