A simple, almost self-evident proof that I've never seen before
Offline Hi again everyone,
Last time I posted, I posted about how I didn't believe that Christians really do have a "moral standard" as they claim. It was basically an argument for the problem of suffering/pain, in that they cannot seem to get over it and still have an omni-benevolent god. In any case, I realized that Christians (and probably other religions, I just don't know them as well as Christianity) not only don't have a moral standard as they claim, but they have one that is completely independent of the bible, or that it is an irrational, circular religion from the get-go. Let me know what you think!
Suppose Christians really do get their morals straight from the bible.
Due to the circularity of it, Christians cannot determine if the bible's morality is good or bad. For example, if you ask them to determine if it is a good thing that the bible says not to kill anyone, they shouldn't be able to respond to that rationally. Basically, they have to use some standard outside of the bible to judge the bible.
If they judge the bible, they're using a standard that is not part of the bible, unless they're being irrational (because of the circularity). If they're being irrational, we need not pay attention to them. This is not a contradiction, but it invalidates any arguments they can make. If they're really judging it, then they don't get their morals from the bible. This IS a contradiction, so the supposition is false.
The only thing I can see that they will use to try to throw a wrench into this argument is if they say that god instilled them with innate morals, and simply use the bible as a guide to understanding those morals. Aside from the fact that the bible disagrees with this, we can still see that unless their morals line up perfectly with the bible, then they didn't get their morals from god, unless he decided the bible was out of date and thought putting different morals into a person would make them go and change it.
Just for knowledge's sake, the bible doesn't agree with the above because it was evident that if morality exists as "Good is what god says to do, bad is what god says not to do", then Adam and Eve did not have morals to begin with, and as such there's no reason to suppose that we are born with morals in the same way either.
This proof was inspired by George H. Smith's Atheism: A Case Against God. I suggest everyone read it, especially Christians.
"Jesus -- the other white Moses" - Me.
- Login to post comments
Very good points. Here's a recent article from The Slate that demonstrates that the origin of morality is the brain:
http://www.slate.com/id/2162998/
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Sometimes it is morally right to kill people though. I'm not sure you can use bible literalism as a credible argument here.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Excellent points. Theism teaches that man is incapable of being a moral agent, only an obedience engine.
Any neurologist worth his or her salt will acknowledge the fundamental relationship between ethics and reason. Humans decide on right and wrong based on reason. Obviously, the two functions are not identical, but without a rational engine, there can be no ethical code, a man cannot decide what is right and wrong without it. It is utterly absurd to state that such ethical codes are handed to humanity by a magical vindicator in the sky, and as todangst pointed out, under Kohberg's stages of moral reasoning, it is bankrupt, completely and utterly bankrupt, reducing humans to mere engines of obedience to the whims of a magical being. He pointed out, succintly, that the religious notion that humans are spoon-fed absolute truths about right and wrong from a magical being, devoid of the necessity to make such decisions for themselves. to be so absurd, so foolish, that I almost cracked a rib trying not to laugh.
I used to serve on a hospital bioethics committee. Yome of things we had to decide were quite nasty, like which transplant patient needed the liver more and which had to die...but, imagine, just imagine for a moment that one of the doctors came in with a leather-bound Bible and said... it's OK! Everyone! Why don't we just consult the bible, there is no need for discussion? Would this douchebag be taken seriously?
Did not Spinoza say: True virtue is life under the direction of reason?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
You can argue that the Bible does argue for instilled morals: "When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness..." (Romans 2:14-15a RSV)
Where does the bible disagree with this?