crimsontide06 said:
like for example, halal slaughter. After reading about how an animal is killed according to halal means, I realized "wow...that causes the animal to suffer a lot." But it's not my job to care if it causes the animal to suffer since that it what God says to do.
Here we have an example of somebody who believes God has told him to cause animals to suffer. His evolved sense of empathy and fairness tells him this is wrong, but his religion convinces him that it isn't his job to care if the animal suffers, since God says to do it. All of you who are saying that God would not demand suffering or that God is by definition good... I really don't know what to say to you. I'm sure that you imagine that there must be some higher purpose everytime you hear and imagine that God wants something nasty. I suppose that is a form of "faith", which I see as mere excuse making since I don't believe such a God exists. I also see this frequently in Christians as they try to do acrobatics to explain the horrors commanded by God in their bible.
Serenity said:
God has already said that Revelation has stopped and so therefore there is no reason to believe any modern person's claim that God is talking to him/her.
If more believers adopted this position it looks like an interesting way to sidestep the problem that I see, but only a little. You would still have some ambiguous and hotly contested "holy" scripture and traditions etc. There are hundreds of different religions and dozens of denominations within each that disagree on what God wants. And what some of them believe God wants is not in any way moral.
Serenity said:
That said, you also seem to believe that Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) had done a moral wrong in trying to obey God when he decided to sacrifice his son for obedience to God. But that's such a literalist interpretation. What I understand from the task with which God tasked Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) is to see whether Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) is owner or owned of the world. See, when you own the latest model car or have the best significant other you can imagine, do you begin to be possessed by them? Or are they that in which you feel blessed to possess but would still be okay if you didn't have them? Case in point are Wall Street executives who jump out of buildings when they can't face the stress of heavy financial loss.
Of course we start with a literalist interpretation. Then we can look at more poetic interpretations. But by doing the latter we are infusing our own already existing moral values. We have seen interpretation of many holy scriptures change over the decades and centuries to fit with the cultural norms of the era. I know that a lot of religious people like to pretend that their religions never changed, but they have and they do, and we can see it very clearly if we look. Christians don't burn witches at the sake anymore even though "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live". The new pope is a drastic change from how the previous pope looked at things. Existing sects change and new sects emerge over time. Karen Armstrong's "History of God" is a pretty good read on this.
But however you spin the Abraham and Isaac story or the Jephthah and his daughter story or the story of Job, I really don't see how it could be a positive moral story. In Abe & Isaac you've got obedience directly coming up against morality with obedience trumping (even though God is playing a trick on Abe and Isaac and lets them back out at the last moment). The most generous interpretation I can give Abe & Isaac, is that somehow Abe knew all along that God wouldn't kill Isaac and would step in at the last moment, and God was testing Abe's trust in him not to be a monster and accept a child sacrifice. But then in Jephthah you've got God actually accepting a child sacrifice (Jepthah does kill his daughter for God and God doesn't tell him not to). In Job you've got God and the Devil settling a bet on how blindly loyal to God Job is, killing his family, ruining his life, and generally torturing him like a mad tyrant concerned only with his own ego. In each case the human lives of the people who are slaughtered (or would be in the case of Isaac) are disregarded completely. In Job's case, after he proves his loyalty, God gives him a new family, as if that somehow makes up for the innocent people he killed.
And of course you've got the immoral stories of Noah, Passover (to include the Jews here), Lot pimping out his daughters and his wife turning to salt for merely "looking back", etc. And you have amoral stories also showing obedience praised over morality, such as the story of Adam and Eve, the Ten Commandments, and even the story of Jesus sacrifice, and vicarious redemption, which I am very happy to see Islam doesn't subscribe to as Christianity does. The theme of obedience over all else, and over morality, is I would say THE central theme in these Abrahamic religions. That Islam speaks in terms of submission and slavery to Allah is telling.
noraina said:
Morals which comes from humans and their logic are not set in stone, they are fluid and change according to time, culture, place. What might be accepted in a specific time or place would be unacceptable in another - they are not permanent and are largely influenced by society or culture. Morals from God are permanent and don't change according to people's culture or society.
Oh but they do. Your morality is no more objective than mine is. They both start in the same place (empathy and fairness), and they are both influenced by social and cultural forces, one of which is religion. It is just a question of whether we try to think for ourselves and make our own moral judgments based on our empathy and fairness senses, or whether we farm our moral decision making out so we can feel less responsible, and claim some authority figure, be it King or God has made the decision for us, and can't be wrong.
Eric H said:
Pygoscelis, I know we differ, but people can and do live a moral life through faith in God.
Eric, I don't believe that any of your moral inclinations come from your religious belief. You have them already. You are already an empathic, kind, and fairminded person. Your religion in a lens through which you see it and that helps you focus it and encourages you to push it forward, which is good, but it isn't the root source of it. And if it was; if you were only doing kind things because you were told to by an authority figure, that would not be moral behaviour at all, as it would be arbitrary and mere obedience. Doing what is good for the sake of doing good - that is morality. Doing it for the sake of reward or to obey may look moral, but isn't so much.
And in your case, I don't believe for a second that if you genuinely thought God directly commanded you to commit atrocity that you'd do it. You wouldn't. You are too decent a person to be a nazi or daesh soldier.
I agree that there are plenty of people who do good things and are encouraged to do more, or watch over themselves from doing bad things because of their religion. This is great, and is a reason why I am not totally pushing for the eradication of religion altogether. But other people are motivated to do very immoral things through their faith in God. These folks fill the headlines from time to time, and vary from people killing their "demonically possessed" children, to people denying blood transfusions to their children (killing them), to people murdering cartoonists, to people turning against their children and kicking them out of the home for being gay, etc etc. This brings us back to the quote that started this thread.
Charisma said:
You're wrong. Humans don't have innate empathy. We don't grow up empathetic. Empathy is a learned trait. Our morality stems from religion.
That isn't what science has found:
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/the_compassionate_instinct
http://www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/dm...ot/McDonald-Messinger_Empathy Development.pdf
Serenity said:
you are assuming that God could possibly command evil, don't you see the fallacy in that? Satan is who orders evil and immorality.
No. I don't believe God exists, so I can't be saying that. What i am saying is that people can be convinced that God commands what appear to be immoral acts, but they trust they must be moral because God says so. This is a farming out of moral decision making and leads to statements like that in the OP.
Serenity said:
Any sane man who would think of God, would think of a Kind and Just one, if you say otherwise, you've invented a lie
This is demonstrably untrue, as can be seen in modern religion as well as ancient. The Greek gods were known to be cruel.
It is inherent in our nature to think good of Allah / God.
It is if you pre-define God as good, regardless of what horribly bad things God commands. Those horribly bad tings then become "good" if you are putting obedience over actual morality.
How do you know that killing a person is wrong? you feel it is wrong?
I know that killing a person is wrong because I have an evolved sense of empathy and fairness. I have an ability to see myself in others and identify with them and feel their pain even with mirror neurons. And I know that if we allow people to kill people without us caring or doing anything about it, then I could be next killed.
where do you get your morality from?
I answered this already. You can go back and read and respond to that answer if you like, but I won't keep repeating myself over and over.
we say morality is from God, and that God knows best what is right and wrong. And you base it on your morality, which is susceptible to corruption?
Even if God exists as you believe he does, God belief is susceptible to corruption, is it not? How else do we have so many different religions and denominations within religions?
Killing innocents is wrong because God said so.
And what if God says the opposite? Or what if people believe God says the opposite? What if people interpret "innocent" in very narrow terms? What if there are passages in holy books that say to kill the kafir, kill the gays, kill the apostates, kill adulterers, kill disobedient children, kill the neighbouring tribe and take their virgin women for yourselves, kill the unbeliever wherever you find them, not suffer a witch to live, stone people to death for 100 different reasons? Let us not pretend that the Quran or Bible or Torah is written by pacifist Jains. I can open these books randomly and odds are I will find a passage in there telling me to kill somebody for some completely unjustifiable reason.