Philosophical question?

[PtldPlatypus]

Atheists who give of what they have are giving their all. They don't expect an eternal reward. They don't expect to be compensated by an all-seeing deity. In other words, atheists who quietly give to others are the true Good Samaritans. Ironic, isn't it?

Actually, good works are not necessarily supposed to be done in secret. Matt. 5:16 indicates that good works are to be seen by others for the purpose of God being glorified. So since God does not receive any glory from the atheist's secret good work, it is not really "good" in that the goal of glorifying God is not present.

 

[magnifier661]

I apologize for implying that you couldn't change your mind -- I was mostly teasing. Like I said before, I do appreciate your willingness to at least explore alternative viewpoints.

I had a feeling you where teasing. I'm more concerned with others believing your teasing as what I am.

 

[crowTrobot]

Is that altruism per se, or is it beneficial to the species as a whole? Is it selfless, or is it instinctive to that species for the purpose of preservation?

are you asking about humans or dolphins? : )

 

[TripTango]

Actually, good works are not necessarily supposed to be done in secret. Matt. 5:16 indicates that good works are to be seen by others for the purpose of God being glorified. So since God does not receive any glory from the atheist's secret good work, it is not really "good" in that the goal of glorifying God is not present.

Again, I'm not addressing the question "would the Christian God care much for the good deeds of atheists". Obviously, atheists aren't getting into your heaven whether they are correct or not -- that case is closed! The original question was dealing with morality -- the judgment of particular actions here on earth as right or wrong.

 

[magnifier661]

are you asking about humans or dolphins? : )

Is it murder that a lion kills their cubs to benefit their pride; or is it murder for Stalin to kill millions of people he believed would be a detriment to "Mother Russia"?

 

[ABM]

The original question was dealing with morality -- the judgment of particular actions here on earth as right or wrong.

Could you repeat the question? Thanks.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Again, I'm not addressing the question "would the Christian God care much for the good deeds of atheists". Obviously, atheists aren't getting into your heaven whether they are correct or not -- that case is closed! The original question was dealing with morality -- the judgment of particular actions here on earth as right or wrong.

But if we're asking about God-based morality, then the purpose of the action impacts the "level" of morality to be assigned. Therefore, a good work undertaken with no intention to glorify God cannot be considered morally right.

 

[magnifier661]

Again, I'm not addressing the question "would the Christian God care much for the good deeds of atheists". Obviously, atheists aren't getting into your heaven whether they are correct or not -- that case is closed! The original question was dealing with morality -- the judgment of particular actions here on earth as right or wrong.

But I think I made my point of the other, don't you agree? You may not agree with my theology; but we are in the context of my theology, no?

 

[TripTango]

Actually, good works are not necessarily supposed to be done in secret. Matt. 5:16 indicates that good works are to be seen by others for the purpose of God being glorified. So since God does not receive any glory from the atheist's secret good work, it is not really "good" in that the goal of glorifying God is not present.

On a side note (and I apologize for yet another tangent), this is a fantastic example of Biblical contradictions. Consider Matthew 6:1-4.

1 “Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2 “So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 3 But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

 

[TripTango]

But if we're asking about God-based morality, then the purpose of the action impacts the "level" of morality to be assigned. Therefore, a good work undertaken with no intention to glorify God cannot be considered morally right.

AGAIN. If we are asking about God-based morality, the case for atheists is closed. Why even discuss it further? Also see my post on conspicuous giving above.

 

[magnifier661]

On a side note (and I apologize for yet another tangent), this is a fantastic example of Biblical contradictions. Consider Matthew 6:1-4.

Actually that makes a lot of sense.

If you give for the Glory of God, then tell the world. If you give for your own Glory, then don't tell anyone. If you give for the Glory of God, but use it to glorify yourself, then you get no reward.

 

[TripTango]

Are we? I understood your original question as "how can anything be judged good or bad without a god to tell you so"? This is examining the philosophical consequences on morality in the absence of a deity. Did I misread the question?

 

[TripTango]

Actually that makes a lot of sense.

If you give for the Glory of God, then tell the world. If you give for your own Glory, then don't tell anyone. If you give for the Glory of God, but use it to glorify yourself, then you get no reward.

"But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

Nothing unclear about that: GIVE IN SECRET.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Actually that makes a lot of sense.

If you give for the Glory of God, then tell the world. If you give for your own Glory, then don't tell anyone. If you give for the Glory of God, but use it to glorify yourself, then you get no reward.

Exactly--well said. Of course, ultimately the hope would be that the recipient would actually be the one who would be glorifying God because of the blessing of the gift.

 

[crowTrobot]

That is instinct. And you can go even further and say how can a Rat actually be motherly to Mice? Those are instincts. And even Harris believes instincts and morals are two separate things.

totally false. not in the context of descriptive morality he doesn't.

when you say humans have morality "infused" into us, you're just referring to how certain behavior tends to make us feel. emotional reaction is intimately tied to instict. we are no different than animals in that regard.

if you want to get into prescriptive morality (knowledge of what we actually SHOULD do, not why we behave the way we do), obviously we don't have that infused into us since there are very few moral issues humans agree universally about.

 

[TripTango]

Is it murder that a lion kills their cubs to benefit their pride; or is it murder for Stalin to kill millions of people he believed would be a detriment to "Mother Russia"?

Who knows what lions think. We humans - almost universally - call what Stalin did murder, whether or not we deemed it necessary. Why do we need a stone tablet to condemn it? Some may disagree with that condemnation, but that uncertainty, that subjectivity, is part of what defines our human condition.

 

[TripTango]

Exactly--well said. Of course, ultimately the hope would be that the recipient would actually be the one who would be glorifying God because of the blessing of the gift.

Got it. Glorify in secret, such that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, but make sure everyone can witness and acknowledge the glory of God in your conspicuous action. Makes perfect sense!

 

[magnifier661]

AGAIN. If we are asking about God-based morality, the case for atheists is closed. Why even discuss it further? Also see my post on conspicuous giving above.

Plat may have not seen the debate before you asked that question. But I already answered it.

Regardless if we are Christians or Atheists (And I'm just using only Atheists because it seems this is only what you are talking about); both have the moral code in us given by God. And both of us, Christians and Atheists, can do just as much morally wrong as morally right. Just because you are a Christian, doesn't mean you somehow become morally better than a non-christian. All it means is "Christians" found God. They are born again and don't have to worry about life after death. What we choose to do in life will just effect others and their possible leading to Christ.

Example: Look at the "Cruisades" of medieval times. They assumed they were glorifying God by forcing others through violence to accept Christ or their religion. There could be a large possibility that many muslims actually "Outwordly accepted", but internally they didn't. They did this for their own Glory. As you can see, this only created a problem to non-believers, because of their inability to morally do what they felt was right for God.

Jesus Christ tells us to be a good example, so others see a change in your life and be witnessed to God's glory. If they see a arrogant "I'm so right and you are so wrong" type person; then that isn't moral. That's actually far from it. I picture Christians proving and showing what is God's love. In the end, that is only important. How much moral works you do mean nothing. But not showing morality; shows everything. I think this is where some Christians have it all wrong. They believe a suit and tie, and proclaiming how much they tithe or how many people they lead to the Lord, somehow makes them a better Christian. That is so far beyond the truth. A true Christian shows how much they love their God by striving to be moral; even though they know that it is impossible.

 

[ABM]

if you want to get into prescriptive morality (knowledge of what we actually SHOULD do, not why we behave the way we do), obviously we don't have that infused into us since there are very few moral issues humans agree universally about.

True. In my case, that's the work of the Holy Spirit. OK, well, along with the guidance of the Scriptures. They work in tandem.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Got it. Glorify in secret, such that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, but make sure everyone can witness and acknowledge the glory of God in your conspicuous action. Makes perfect sense!

No need to mock; it's OK to simply admit that you don't understand.

 

[TripTango]

Alright, I'm really lagging on my work today. I've got to close S2 and focus. It's been a good discussion -- hopefully see y'all tonight for the homecoming victory!

 

[TripTango]

No need to mock; it's OK to simply admit that you don't understand.

No, I simply recognize a direct contradiction when I see one.

 

[magnifier661]

"But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you."

Nothing unclear about that: GIVE IN SECRET.

You are looking at this literally. Let me break it down...

Give it in secrete; means don't give so others know you given because of you. But if you read the entire passage; what that means is not to give for others to see what you do for your own glory. Because of that "Selfless act", you get the reward from God.

But before, he is telling you that anything that will show and prove to the world that gift is for the Glory of God; and you better show that it's only for his glory; you get a reward.

 

[ABM]

Got it. Glorify in secret, such that the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing, but make sure everyone can witness and acknowledge the glory of God in your conspicuous action. Makes perfect sense!

The bottom-line in all of this is that, (as a Christian) when you perform acts of compassion, help others, or give to the needy, etc., it's not about getting personal giggles or kudos and/or glory.....it's about genuinely doing it as if you were helping Jesus, Himself..and for HIS glory. Jesus even alluded to that out in Scripture:

31-33"When he finally arrives, blazing in beauty and all his angels with him, the Son of Man will take his place on his glorious throne. Then all the nations will be arranged before him and he will sort the people out, much as a shepherd sorts out sheep and goats, putting sheep to his right and goats to his left.
34-36"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Enter, you who are blessed by my Father! Take what's coming to you in this kingdom. It's been ready for you since the world's foundation. And here's why:

I was hungry and you fed me,
I was thirsty and you gave me a drink,
I was homeless and you gave me a room,
I was shivering and you gave me clothes,
I was sick and you stopped to visit,
I was in prison and you came to me.'

37-40"Then those 'sheep' are going to say, 'Master, what are you talking about? When did we ever see you hungry and feed you, thirsty and give you a drink? And when did we ever see you sick or in prison and come to you?' Then the King will say, 'I'm telling the solemn truth: Whenever you did one of these things to someone overlooked or ignored, that was me—you did it to me.' ~Matthew 25:31-40

 

[magnifier661]

totally false. not in the context of descriptive morality he doesn't.

when you say humans have morality "infused" into us, you're just referring to how certain behavior tends to make us feel. emotional reaction is intimately tied to instict. we are no different than animals in that regard.

if you want to get into prescriptive morality (knowledge of what we actually SHOULD do, not why we behave the way we do), obviously we don't have that infused into us since there are very few moral issues humans agree universally about.

All humans agree that killing is not moral. And don't get it confused with killing because of justification.

All humans want to love; another moral that is universal.

All humans want peace of some kind.

 

[magnifier661]

Alright, I'm really lagging on my work today. I've got to close S2 and focus. It's been a good discussion -- hopefully see y'all tonight for the homecoming victory!

Yeah it was fun!

 

[crowTrobot]

All humans agree that killing is not moral. And don't get it confused with killing because of justification.

most modern humans would agree that killing for no reason whatsoever is immoral. that's one of the very few things we agree on, and it's a matter of common sense because we all value our own lives.

the moral dilemma is in what constitutes justification for killing.

All humans want to love

yet the USA is split 50/50 over the morality of gay marriage.

All humans want peace of some kind.

yet we are widely split over whether wars are morally justifiable or not.

 

[magnifier661]

most modern humans would agree that killing for no reason whatsoever is immoral. that's one of the very few things we agree on, and it's a matter of common sense because we all value our own lives.

the moral dilemma is in what constitutes justification for killing.

But that's besides the point. I am replying that this isn't a learned or instinct.

yet the USA is split 50/50 over the morality of gay marriage.

Doesn't matter, everyone still wants to be loved. This statement holds no grounds to my statement.

yet we are widely split over whether wars are morally justifiable or not.

But still the human civilizations all want peace in some way or another; which is "moral", not instinct.

Remember that we are talking about the difference between instinct and morality being different. I am just saying that all humans have this "morality infused". How they choose to act or disagree on the value, justification or belief what is true love holds no relevance that all humans feel this way.

 

[Denny Crane]

Humans don't have any morality "infused."

The first tool was likely used to beat someone else over the head.

Our morals and the morals of the Romans are extremely different.

And I think I'd like to become a religious person. I like the Hindu god, and he made the universe in a very different way than the christian one did. How does that square?

 

[crowTrobot]

I am replying that this isn't a learned or instinct.

we agree that people shouldn't murder each other because we share the value of not wanting to die. this agreement is a matter of common sense, not some metaphysical miracle out of nowhere.

Doesn't matter, everyone still wants to be loved.

homosexuality is a prescriptive moral topic. just saying 'everyone wants to be loved' isn't. when you say that you're just talking about how we feel, not what we should do.

and most higher mammals want to be loved in the same way humans do, and most form the same social bonds humans do. so good luck differentiating that from evolved instinct.

But still the human civilizations all want peace in some way or another; which is "moral", not instinct.

well yeah, humans consciously value their own well-being. again that's simple common sense. no reason to resort to some mysterious metaphysical infusion from god to explain that.