Will God accept you if you renounce religion?

zenf · 3 Jan 2013 at 14:31

Jason2 said:
And btw, I've never seen an animal go into a school and kill innocent children. Neither have I seen an animal engage in cruelty, knowing full well what they are doing.

Here's an article about baboons going to war:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8400000/8400019.stm

"What's interesting about hamadryas baboons is the way they control their social structure through aggression. Just seeing some of the males disciplining their females - it really is quite nasty," she says.

If a human was to control a female like that, would it be cruelty? Sure, there are evolutionary reasons for them doing that but the same could be same for humans, it doesn't make it any less cruel.

Here's one about killer dolphins:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3323070/Killer-dolphins-baffle-marine-experts.html

Film taken of gangs of dolphins repeatedly ramming baby porpoises, tossing them in the air and pursuing them to the death has solved a long-term mystery of what causes the death of so many of these harmless mammals - but has left animal experts baffled as to the motive.

Castiel · 3 Jan 2013 at 14:34

zenf1 said:
Rape isn't necessarily a legal term, and I clarified the murder part.

No? Rape and Murder are generally defined under legal principles, which is why in terms of animal behaviour those terms are not used, with forced copulation and killing being preferable to avoid such contextual associations and confusion over the moral and legal obligations inherent in human behaviour that is absent from animal behaviour.

zenf1 said:
I'm not trying to make the argument that animals have the same obligation to try and be moral as humans do, only that certain acts in the animal kingdom can be just as immoral as those acts happening with humans, from our perspective. I wouldn't expect the animals to see it that way.

Then it is rather pointless and has no bearing on the debate. If the moral obligation is what separates Humans from Animals then assigning ethical values to animals actions as a comparison to Human actions is flawed as it is anthropomorphising animal behaviour in accordance with human social ethical concepts.

Jason2 · 3 Jan 2013 at 14:55

zenf1 said:
Here's an article about baboons going to war:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8400000/8400019.stm

If a human was to control a female like that, would it be cruelty? Sure, there are evolutionary reasons for them doing that but the same could be same for humans, it doesn't make it any less cruel.

Here's one about killer dolphins:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3323070/Killer-dolphins-baffle-marine-experts.html

You're using a natural fallacy. Doh!

zenf · 3 Jan 2013 at 14:56

Castiel said:
No? Rape and Murder are generally defined under legal principles, which is why in terms of animal behaviour those terms are not used, with forced copulation and killing being preferable to avoid such contextual associations and confusion over the moral and legal obligations inherent in human behaviour that is absent from animal behaviour.

Again, I've already clarifed murder and rape is a general word, as well as a legal term. It may not be the preferable word to use in terms of animal behaviour but it's ultimately the same thing as forced copulation. Having checked the dictionary definition, as a noun it does specify 'person' but the verb is defined as 'to force to have sexual intercourse'. Saying that's different from forced copulation is splitting hairs.

Castiel said:
Then it is rather pointless and has no bearing on the debate. If the moral obligation is what separates Humans from Animals then assigning ethical values to animals actions as a comparison to Human actions is flawed as it is anthropomorphising animal behaviour in accordance with human social ethical concepts.

We're not really all that separate from the animals. As you say, we have a higher level of understanding but we are still just animals largely driven by our instincts, it's just that as a result of our evolved higher level of understanding, our instincts, socio-biological and behavioural imperatives have evolved also, and we've decided to call them 'morals'.

zenf · 3 Jan 2013 at 14:57

Jason2 said:
You're using a natural fallacy. Doh!

In what way?

Castiel · 3 Jan 2013 at 15:10

zenf1 said:
Again, I've already clarifed murder and rape is a general word, as well as a legal term. It may not be the preferable word to use in terms of animal behaviour but it's ultimately the same thing as forced copulation. Having checked the dictionary definition, as a noun it does specify 'person' but the verb is defined as 'to force to have sexual intercourse'. Saying that's different from forced copulation is splitting hairs.

Murder is a legal term...it has no other definition. Rape similarly has a legal basis in its definition, albeit less defined. But if you are to associate sociobiological traits with rape then you are opening a bag of worms in relation to how we would treat rape legally and socially...coercisive sex in the animal kingdom may resemble rape, but it is highly controversial to determine rape as a behavioural adaptation akin to coercive sexual behaviour in animals. Hence the clear demarkation between sexual coercion in the animal kingdom, and rape in human socio-behavioural interaction.

zenf1 said:
We're not really all that separate from the animals. As you say, we have a higher level of understanding but we are still just animals largely driven by our instincts, it's just that as a result of our evolved higher level of understanding, our instincts, socio-biological and behavioural imperatives have evolved also, and we've decided to call them 'morals'.

So morality doesn't apply to animal socio-biological behaviour then? Which is what I was pointing out...to compare human social behaviour with that of the animal kingdom is flawed.

Castiel · 3 Jan 2013 at 15:12

zenf1 said:
In what way?

Anthropomorphising evolutionary animal socio-biological behaviour adaptations and assuming a validated comparison perhaps?

estebanrey · 3 Jan 2013 at 15:20

Jason2 said:
According to your logic, infanticide should be allowed because, afterall, animals often eat their young.

Um no. I don't think you've followed the logic of my posts if you've reached that conclusion.

Where on earth did I claim that humans should be able to do whatever animals do without legal recourse? The word 'allowed' implies some kind of punishment, which in most human societies is prison. But like in nature humans do commit infanticide, mirroring some of our more wild cousins. The only difference is they don't have police and judicial systems like we do.

I find the logic that morality is somehow inbuilt in humans and the behest of God (and exclusive to us only) the thing that is illogical because if that were true we wouldn't need laws to constrain natural behaviour. The fact we need these convoluted legal systems and punishments shows me that morality is certainly NOT inbuilt into humans in terms of an objective set of rules that apply to all.

estebanrey · 3 Jan 2013 at 15:26

P.S I was going to post earlier "I bet Castiel starts playing a semantics game with 'rape' and 'murder' and the whole point of what was being discussed will be derailed".....

You're too predictable Cas

ringo747 · 3 Jan 2013 at 15:32

So it is possible for objective moral values to exist without God? Is yes, then what are they based in?

For clarity (again), by objective moral values I mean that an act is really right or really wrong regardless of human opinion.

Castiel · 3 Jan 2013 at 15:35

estebanrey said:
P.S I was going to post earlier "I bet Castiel starts playing a semantics game with 'rape' and 'murder' and the whole point of what was being discussed will be derailed".....

You're too predictable Cas

And you can't see the distinctions necessary to define the issues correctly otherwise you end up making flawed comparisons and erroneous conclusions. The points I raised are not semantic, they are specific issues with the definitions which are often discussed within philosophy and anthropology and have significant impact on the nature of the debate, particularly if you are associating the concepts of rape and murder(which is a legal term, nothing more, by definition animals can't murder each other unless they are subject to legal process) with animal socio-biological adaptations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiological_theories_of_rape

Which is all the more amusing given your own statements regarding the flawed nature of comparing human morality with animal socio-biological behaviour. Just because you do not understand something fully or do not have the broad knowledge as yet doesn't automatically mean someone is arguing semantics....you really need to stop associating disagreement and clarification with semantics and pedantry.

Naffa · 3 Jan 2013 at 15:37

Isn't murder defined as 'malice of forethought'? I do wonder how/whether that could be applied to my cat playing with mice before slaughtering them, and then walking away.

estebanrey · 3 Jan 2013 at 15:40

ringo747 said:
So it is possible for objective moral values to exist without God? Is yes, then what are they based in?

For clarity (again), by objective moral values I mean that an act is really right or really wrong regardless of human opinion.

As I said, I don't agree there is such a thing as "objective morality" in terms of the way you are defining it.

Because clearly, only if you believe in a higher power or God can you think anything can be judged as right or wrong regardless of human opinion. I don't believe there is a supernatural judge in the sky therefore there is no one to define, over the rule of humans, what's right or wrong. Only we as a species define what is right or wrong and best for the continuation of our species (in a nutshell that is all morals are, the best set of rules of ensuring we can succeed as a species).

In short, there is no such thing as objective morality. But that doesn't mean that morality doesn't exist or that it isn't useful. Just because there isn't objective morality, doesn't then mean you can say we can anything we want then because that's clearly not how human societies or civilisations work.

ringo747 · 3 Jan 2013 at 15:43

estebanrey said:
As I said, I don't agree there is such a thing as "objective morality" in terms of the way you are defining it.

Because clearly, only if you believe in a higher power or God can you think anything can be judged as right or wrong regardless of human opinion. I don't believe there is a supernatural judge in the sky therefore there is no one to define, over the rule of humans, what's right or wrong.

In short, there is no such thing as objective morality. But that doesn't mean that morality doesn't exist or that it isn't useful. Just because there isn't objective morality, doesn't then mean you can say we can anything we want then because that's clearly not how human societies or civilisations work.

Fair enough. Let's rephrase the question slightly. Can objective morality (my definition) only exist if God exists?

estebanrey · 3 Jan 2013 at 15:45

Castiel said:
...snip

You've missed the point (as usual).

I wasn't saying you don't understand the terminology, I am saying that you are deliberately derailing the poster's point by playing a semantics game with the terms 'rape' and 'murder' when clearly you know full well by that he means 'forced copulation' and 'unmotivated killing'.

The points he was making was based on those two actions, the fact he chose to use the terms 'rape' and 'murder' (to make it clear to everyone reading what he means) doesn't at all detract from the point he was making.

In short take his posts and simply replace 'rape' with 'forced copulation' and 'murder' with 'unmotivated killing' and answer it instead of trying to be clever with the terms he used.

Castiel · 3 Jan 2013 at 15:46

Naffa said:
Isn't murder defined as 'malice of forethought'? I do wonder how/whether that could be applied to my cat playing with mice before slaughtering them, and then walking away.

Is it unlawful? As in is your cat following its biological behavioural imperative and does it have a moral obligation to consider the mouse and the consequences of its actions on the mouse, and above all is the killing of the mouse by the cat subject to legal consideration?

If the answer is no, then the cat has not committed murder, it has simply killed a mouse.

Murder is the unlawful killing of one human by another human with malice aforethought. Cats need not apply...

estebanrey · 3 Jan 2013 at 15:50

ringo747 said:
Fair enough. Let's rephrase the question slightly. Can objective morality (my definition) only exist if God exists?

Depends how you look it at it.

Even if God does exist and he has a set of moral values he thinks we should follow it could still be argued that is a subjective view he has. Are there other gods with opposing views for example? Is God a man that thinks critically or just some physical force unguided by rationality but still capable of displaying morality.

It really depends on how you would see your God I suppose.

Castiel · 3 Jan 2013 at 15:55

estebanrey said:
You've missed the point (as usual).

I wasn't saying you don't understand the terminology, I am saying that you are deliberately derailing the poster's point by playing a semantics game with the terms 'rape' and 'murder' when clearly you know full well by that he means 'forced copulation' and 'unmotivated killing'.

The points he was making was based on those two actions, the fact he chose to use the terms 'rape' and 'murder' (to make it clear to everyone reading what he means) doesn't at all detract from the point he was making.

In short take his posts and simply replace 'rape' with 'forced copulation' and 'murder' with 'unmotivated killing' and answer it instead of trying to be clever with the terms he used.

No I haven't, you are involved in a discussion you barely understand as usual, so you hitch a ride on the 'attack the poster wagon' as soon as possible.

It is not as simple as replacing terms he used (as that would change the context and associations he was making), he was associating the defined terms (particular murder) with the actions of animals in relation to humans (essentially saying that Rape in humans is the same as Coercive Sexual behaviour in animals, and Killing in Animals is the same as Murder in humans) ...with rape that gives a very specific association that is controversial. I was explaining why he was wrong in associating murder and rape in human terms to the animal kingdom, and why therefore his reasoning is flawed. That is not semantics and it is not pedantry..it is explanation why the comparisons cannot be made and the argument based on that comparison regarding moral behaviour as opposed to social-biological behaviour cannot be made effectively. The actions may resemble human comparisons, but they are not equivalent to human comparisons..and the reasoning for that.

Accept that or not, I am not getting into a circular debate with you about it, I have explained my reasoning and that is all that needs to be said.

Naffa · 3 Jan 2013 at 15:58

I don't care about the law, when considering the morality of an action.

Castiel · 3 Jan 2013 at 16:07

Naffa said:
I don't care about the law, when considering the morality of an action.

Which is fine if you are considering the morality of killing....is your Cat subject to morality?

If morality is hard wired into our genetic makeup (particularly in socially dependent mammals) then we should have an objective morality after all? And would that objective morality be ingrained into us and how much of that is actual social responsibilty and compex emotional responses and how much is simply evolved social-biological behaviour?

And how does that impact on human morality and actions based on that morality?

Issues such as rape as a biological adaptation and how that influences rapists, and I suppose we could extend that to other ethical questions such as unlawful killing and so on.......

As I said...big can of worms.