Morality & Obedience

[Serinity]

In fact, there are not even facts. If you believe that an event truly happened, why is that? Because people witnessed it? In that case, the "fact" just represents the belief in their witness depositions. If you witnessed it by yourself, it represents the trust (=belief) in your own eyes and memory. Everything is literally belief.

Aristotelian naivism collapsed a long time ago. In the 19th century, when set theory (Zermelo-Fränckel) was busy replacing number theory (Dedekind-Peano) as the dominant axiomatization for mathematics, with everybody thinking and hoping that things would finally get better, Russell's paradox triggered a meltdown in the belief that all questions would now be decidable (i.e. be true or false): Does the set of all sets that do not contain themselves, contain itself? That was the end of "naive" set theory and naive Aristotelian 2-valued logic. The answer to the paradox is obviously that it cannot be true, but that it can also not be false. It is fundamentally not-true-not-false.

what you are talking about is types..

If I asked you "Is killing a person Evil?" you'd say depends. It can be evil (true) it can be just (good and true)

If I asked you "does the moon exist?" you'd say yes. Saying it does not exist, is false. If you say "THIS WHOLE WORLD COULD BE JUST A DREAM. WHAT YOU SEE MAY JUST BE SOME INPUT, WORTHLESS" if you have no proof, it is false.

 

[kritikvernunft]

If I asked you "Is killing a person Evil?"

Morality is a bit of a special field. According to Immanuel Kant's Kritik der practischen Vernunft, moral rules must always be categorical imperatives. There can never be any hypothetical explanation or goal-to-attain as to why a particular type of behaviour is forbidden. Any such explanation would require access to the Theory of Everything. This is something that will never possible. In other words, morality can only be revealed. We don't know why the moral rules are there. We do not even need to know that. It is just like that.

If I asked you "does the moon exist?" you'd say yes. Saying it does not exist, is false.

It represents the trust (=belief) in my eyes and/or memory, when I see it, and in the witness depositions of people who also saw it. Seriously, I have never actually traveled to the moon. We have models that explain what that thing is doing over there, but this in turn represents trust in the provability or falsifiability of these models. But then again, it is not a particularly important question either. I did not intend to make money from the moon in one way or another. If it were important to me, I would certainly take a closer look at what exactly everybody seems to be conjecturing about that thing. At the moment and in the foreseeable future, I cannot see any possible application for that. Therefore, the moon is pretty much irrelevant to me. Hence, ignorance is bliss! ;-)

 

[Pygoscelis]

Re: Straight Answers to Controversial Questions about Islam

Did we not inform you that Allah :swt: never commands a bad or horrible thing? I would suggest you to go back and re-read both the threads from the beginning once again.

Oh indeed. So it must be true. Because you have defined it to be true. And you force us all to agree because those are the rules here. And that is fine. I didn't say Allah is ever wrong or bad. He is true and perfect. You are not delusional at all. My only point was that OTHER religious people, delusional with other mistaken conceptions of gods, that are not Allah, and not perfect and true, give the exact same moral reasoning as I stated above. Nobody here wants to address them, afraid that I may be talking about you good folks. I'm not. Apparently you can't see it in other people? In the Christians? In the Jews? In the Hindus? In people who believed just as strongly in Zeus, Odin, etc?

 

[AabiruSabeel]

I get your point Pygo and I was planning to address it here.

As I said earlier, the basis for all this discussion on morality and obedience is the belief in Allah, the One and Only God. As long as you do not believe in Him, you will not be able to fully understand this concept. Once we believe in Him, we can easily dismiss all other false gods and their commands.


Just to explain this point in simple words, when you look for a good doctor for your treatment and finally you find one whom you can trust, you accept his treatment and follow his advice, even if you had to take bitter medicine, and even if he does horrible things to your body, pulls out your organs, drains your blood and replaces them with better ones. Do you not trust him and agree that he knows better what he is doing, and that he does it for your own good sake? Or do you go around saying he wants to do this and do that, and refuse to take any treatment just because it sounds horrible?



So the first step is finding the One True God, the One who is the real God. Once you find Him, you place absolute trust in Him.

 

[Pygoscelis]

So the first step is finding the One True God, the One who is the real God. Once you find Him, you place absolute trust in Him.

... Regardless of being right or wrong about that first step. That is the problem. You may be right, but that means others are wrong, and they follow that same second step, thinking, just like you do, that their God must have some higher reason to demand they do whatever they are convinced that he demands of them, whether or not it makes sense or seems moral to them.

Can you see how this makes them dangerous? Or will you continue to avoid that question and just keep insisting that since your God is true, this doesn't apply to you? So what if it doesn't apply to you? It still applies to the others...and leaves them immune to moral reason or empathy.

 

[Serinity]

Those who think God commands them to do wrong, are devoid of morals themselves, or they do not even understand themselves.

Those who do not know themselves, do not know God. GOD created us, GOD gave us the morality, GOD created us upon His Fitrah, so we can recognize Him. The way to find God is to know yourself.

you are either, ignoring, or blind to the fact that God created us, and with that in mind, He gave us morality. He :swt: created us to worship Him, alone, and none else. HIS religion would NEVER contradict SOUND human NATURE. What did He gave us? Morality. So your point is mute. You are ignoring a huge chunk, and that is the fact that God created us, and with that in mind, His religion can not contradict.

Those who think God commands them to do wrong or horrible things, as you suggest, do not even understand themselves, or know themselves.

The way to find God is to follow one's Fitrah, one's morality.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Well... now this is getting interesting...

There are hundreds of different conceptions of Gods, mostly conflicting with each other. So by simple logic we know that most can't be true. One may be true. Yours may be true. But most of them are false conceptions; false Gods.

Nevertheless, all believers in Gods (real or false) believe that theirs is true, and that what they think God wants of them is also true. The false God believers are just as certain about this as the real God believers.

With the rare exception of psychopaths and sociopaths, all believers in Gods (real or false) also have inborn senses of empathy and fairness, just as atheists do.

So the question then, is what is a theist to do when their own moral senses conflict with or can not explain what they know (think they know) are commands from God.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I think I am seeing two different approaches in this thread to this question, one in the OP and in ibn-Adam's most recent post, and one in Serenity's post immediately above.

The first approach is a top-down approach. This believer trusts in their God(s) that he/she/it/they are all-good and know better than the believer, and that the believer simply doesn't see what makes an action morally right that would appear morally wrong otherwise. For the true God believers, who actually have an all-good and all-knowing God, this works. They are trusting in somebody who knows better than they do and everybody benefits as a result. For the believers in False Gods though, this is just an abandonment of moral senses, enabling them or encouraging them to do bad things they wouldn't have otherwise done. And that is the point I was making earlier in this thread.

The second approach is more of a bottom-up approach. This believer recognizes/decides that, as Serenity says, to know God the believer must know himself, and that God would not order bad or evil. This believer starts with the notion that the true God's religion would never contradict sound human nature. So this believer in a God (real or false) uses their own moral senses to determine if their concept of God is true or not, and adjusts it accordingly, bringing them to the one true God. This requires one to admit that the conception of God that they believe in presently may be false, and that they may need to adjust it with further introspection and as they find better moral information.

These two approaches are opposite of one another and I am surprised to find both presented within the same religion (Islam).

 

[Serinity]

you are misunderstanding Pygo.

I do not know about the concept of God, except by revelation. Whatever God affirms for Himself, we believe in whatever He affirmed. I do not make up stuff about Allah from my own self. I believe in the concept of God presented by Islam, what Allah affirmed for Him, I affirm for myself.

So if Allah says He is Most Merciful, I affirm that in my beliefs. I do not make things up myself. I believe in Allah, The One and Only True God. I believe whatever the Quran tells me to believe. The Quran is always right, so the concept of God, will always be true, never false.

we don't care what people think who God is, what they say God is, we affirm our belief in God, and the concept of God, by affirming in belief, what God Himself affirmed For Himself, in attributes and qualities.

One requires first to believe God exists, then search.

Whatever Allah commands, I do not know myself, except by reading His book, The Quran.

I do not adjust by concept of God by my morals. I believe in Allah, and His attributes and whatever He revealed about Himself.

The concept of God, in Islam, is 100% true. So it can not be false.

The concept of God is in Surah Al-Ikhlas. 112. Aqeedah.

 

[Pygoscelis]

^ I suspected as much. Seems I called your bluff and now you are correcting it eh?

Care to address the actual topic here then?

The first approach is a top-down approach. This believer trusts in their God(s) that he/she/it/they are all-good and know better than the believer, and that the believer simply doesn't see what makes an action morally right that would appear morally wrong otherwise. For the true God believers, who actually have an all-good and all-knowing God, this works. They are trusting in somebody who knows better than they do and everybody benefits as a result. For the believers in False Gods though, this is just an abandonment of moral senses, enabling them or encouraging them to do bad things they wouldn't have otherwise done. And that is the point I was making earlier in this thread.

And I can't really distinguish the believers in true God from the believers in False gods, as everybody insists that they are the beleivers in the true God. I can't tell you apart. So from my point of view, any of you, or possibly all of you are abandoning your moral senses with the above logic, without the justification of an omni-benevolent God who knows better than you. And from your own perspective, even if your God is real, you must be able to see that this is happening to those whose conceptions of Gods are not real.

I am amazed how in thread people have been twisting and turning, ducking and dodging to prevent themselves form seeing and acknowledging this simple fact.

 

[Serinity]

The conception of God, can never come from humans, ever.

we can never make up claims and say what God is and what He isn't.

Whatever Allah :swt: affirms about Himself, that is what He is. Not what any Joe says.

Whosoever says "God is this and that" without proof from revelation, is a liar. Again, first find God, then we can speak, and weed out all the false Gods, and dismiss their commandments.

you can not distinguish cuz you don't know God Himself.

 

[aamirsaab]

(snip)...
So the question then, is what is a theist to do when their own moral senses conflict with or can not explain what they know (think they know) are commands from God.

Think, ponder and come to a decision - either through consultation with a more knowledgeable person or through self reflection. Theists are not immune to moral dilemas, certainly there are times when even the staunchest theist will have doubts in and towards their faith. This is commonly known as "life",

 

[Pygoscelis]

The conception of God, can never come from humans, ever.

Of course, I believe the exact opposite; that the conception of God only comes from humans, but for the sake of this point, I am quite fine going along with your claim here. It does not change my point, which you still have not addressed.

we can never make up claims and say what God is and what He isn't.

Sure we can. We may be completely wrong and be making up false ideas, and no that isn't he same as lying if we honestly think it is true, which I think most theists do. You may have the right and actual existing God concept, but there are plenty of people who are just as confident as you are, who have concepts of God that are wrong.

Whatever Allah :swt: affirms about Himself, that is what He is. Not what any Joe says.

Sure, but irrelevant to my point.

Whosoever says "God is this and that" without proof from revelation, is a liar. Again, first find God, then we can speak, and weed out all the false Gods, and dismiss their commandments.

My point isn't about that at all. And no, they are not liars if they honestly believe what they say. They are just wrong. You and I think each other are wrong too, but neither of us are liars about it.

you can not distinguish cuz you don't know God Himself.

It doesn't really matter to my point if I could distinguish or not. You and I are both confident that those believers in other god concepts that are not yours, are wrong. We both know that they are wrong. We agree on that much. So you should be able to see my point in regards to them even though to adamantly deny it in regards to yourself (since you know your God to be real).

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

There are hundreds of different conceptions of Gods, mostly conflicting with each other. So by simple logic we know that most can't be true. One may be true. Yours may be true. But most of them are false conceptions; false Gods.

As far as I know, all the main religions have a command saying do not kill, all countries have a law saying do not kill. So whatever false religion or false nation you belong to, you should still not commit murder.

On the other hand, you say you choose the laws that you want to obey, you weigh them up with your own brand of morality. This implies you have a higher regard for your own brand of morality, than you do for Canadian morality. If you want your freedom to obey the laws that suit you, then you have to accept that every Tom, Dick and Jane can make up their own laws to suit them. Just imagine seven billion people making up their own laws, the law would become a free for all, and there would be no law or authority worth following.

The law needs authority, there can be no higher authority than God who sees all and knows all.

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people.

Eric

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;


Remember the quote that started all of this:

Originally Posted by crimsontide06

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.

Originally posted by Pygoscelis;
crimsontide06 believes that God knows better so what may look bad must actually be good.

Most city dwellers are squeamish when it comes to the slaughter of animals, we like to see our meat nicely displayed in butchers shops without all the gore. The halal way to slaughter animals was written fourteen hundred years ago, before electricity was invented, I believe it to have been the most humane way to slaughter animals when there were no stun guns.

According to the RSPCA, most commercially-caught wild fish that are alive when landed die either from being left to suffocate in air, or by a combination of suffocation and evisceration (gutting) during processing. These methods take from minutes to hours to induce insensibility, can cause significant suffering and are not regarded as humane.

Originally posted by Pygoscelis;
That only works so long as crimsontide06's god exists and is all good. I am not saying crimsontide06's god doesn't exist (I am forbidden by the mods to say that). I am saying that others can and do use the same sort of reasoning with other and false gods

There is only 'One God' the creator of all that is seen and unseen, the same God hears all our prayers despite our differences.

In the spirit of praying to 'One God'

Eric

 

[Serinity]

Sure we can. We may be completely wrong and be making up false ideas, and no that isn't he same as lying if we honestly think it is true, which I think most theists do. You may have the right and actual existing God concept, but there are plenty of people who are just as confident as you are, who have concepts of God that are wrong.

No we can not, cuz whatever comes from us, can not be true, in regards to claims about God. IF Prophets said something about God we'd take it, cuz we know he has contact with God.

I disagree with you, 100%.

And I hold those who say about God, without proof, to be liars. Cuz if I say something, and I have NO proof, I have lied! Even if I believe I didn't, one still has lied! Cuz claims without proof are lies.

I'd call it delusional for one to make up claims about God and think it to be true without proof. A rather delusional liar, rather pathetic.

Even if he did not know, it is still a lie, if he has no proof. Regardless of ignorance. To make claims from ignorance does not excuse one from being a liar.

my concept of God, does not come from me, neither did it originate from human thought. Rather, who and what God is, we only know by revelation. And those who make claims without proof, are liars. No matter whether they are ignorants or not, a lie is a lie, and liars are liars, ignorant or not.

 

[Serinity]

It doesn't really matter to my point if I could distinguish or not. You and I are both confident that those believers in other god concepts that are not yours, are wrong. We both know that they are wrong. We agree on that much. So you should be able to see my point in regards to them even though to adamantly deny it in regards to yourself (since you know your God to be real).

The dividing line between our thought processes is that you think that everything is in our brains, and that it all is from imaginations. I believe in God not because of imagination or whatever, but because I am convinced by the His signs in creation.

So, why are they wrong? How are you confident they are wrong? They are claims, but are they true? what factors do you consider for you to confidently say someone is a believer in a false God? Try to think more objectively about it, rather than subjectively.

Who cares what they say, what we care for, is whether it is true or not? The Basic principle I go by is this "No proof - a lie", in regards to claims about God.

Interesting you say that you are confident about someone believing in a false God, why are you confident about that?

In the quest to Truth, we can not take statements lightly, can we? Nor can we take what people say, for granted.

In regards to claims about God, if you say "God is this and that" in a definite voice, and you have no proof, you have lied. Cuz we can not know about God Himself, by our own brains. you can not make claims about God, and bring no proof, and then say you have not lied. Cuz you have, if you did. Claims about God can either be true or false, and the one claims so can only be liar, if he brings no proof.

Any claims about God from ignorance (imagination, etc.), can never be true, ever.

I will always consider those who make claims about God from ignorance, and with no proof, as liars.

 

[Pygoscelis]

As far as I know, all the main religions have a command saying do not kill, all countries have a law saying do not kill. So whatever false religion or false nation you belong to, you should still not commit murder.

There are plenty of people who think their God wants them to kill or harm or hate people, be it Isis types telling thinking God tells them to kill the infidels, be they distraught parents who kill their own children thinking them possessed by demons, or be they other parents denying life saving medical treatment (such as Jehova's Witnesses in regard to blood transfusions) or standing in the way of research that could save millions (ie, stem cell research). There are more who preach hatred, but not killing, because they think God tells them to (Fred Phelps' types), and more who think other destructive behaviour is instructed by God.

They may all be completely wrong and misguided, but they believe, and they use the same logic as above... And indeed we have had people in this thread outright state that if God wanted them to kill people, they would kill people.... So no, you don't get to pretend that God belief is all peace and roses. And it is crystal clear that people's obedience to what they think are Gods cause horrible tragedy, no matter how much you and others here want to avoid acknowledging it.

Of course people do horrible things for other reasons than religion too, and they rationalize it and tell themselves it is right, etc. But they can't do that in quite the same way as when they think a God has told them to do it, absolving them of any personal responsibility to think it through for themselves, making them think it is right (because they think God knows better) even though it appears clearly wrong to them, and removing themselves from any ability to reason with them (since they have abandoned moral judgment making in favour of their God).

On the other hand, you say you choose the laws that you want to obey, you weigh them up with your own brand of morality. This implies you have a higher regard for your own brand of morality, than you do for Canadian morality. If you want your freedom to obey the laws that suit you, then you have to accept that every Tom, Dick and Jane can make up their own laws to suit them. Just imagine seven billion people making up their own laws, the law would become a free for all, and there would be no law or authority worth following.

Only if morality was totally arbitrary. In reality, most of us agree on what moral values are, as you noted above, because we have as a species evolved senses of empathy and fairness. Most of us know that killing isn't good, for example, except in very particular and extreme circumstances. And we shape our societies with ethical reasoning based on those senses and on social contract and utilitarianism.

It is our guard against those who would be tyrants and seek to rule over us, including those who seek to do it with the greatest tool ever devised for it: religion. If they can shut your ethical reasoning down, telling you to do what they say God demands of you, then you become their tool, and that is a shame. That is why statements like we have seen in this thread are scary.

Thankfully, I don't think that has happened to you, or to many religious people, which is why we see so much disagreement among you and selective readings of your holy books, ignoring the bad and embracing the good. The book says that God demands both nasty things and good things, but you ignore the nasty and explain it away with convoluted mental gymnastics... because you already know what is good and what is bad, and didn't actually need a God to tell you, just like me.

Most city dwellers are squeamish when it comes to the slaughter of animals, we like to see our meat nicely displayed in butchers shops without all the gore. The halal way to slaughter animals was written fourteen hundred years ago, before electricity was invented, I believe it to have been the most humane way to slaughter animals when there were no stun guns.

So you don't think it is the most humane way today? We do have stun guns now, and people continue to do it because of obedience to ancient religious directives. And actually, I think that we will someday look back as a species in shock and horror that we used to be so barbaric as to eat other thinking animals. Especially as it becomes easier and easier to avoid and still be healthy.

 

[Pygoscelis]

And I hold those who say about God, without proof, to be liars. Cuz if I say something, and I have NO proof, I have lied! Even if I believe I didn't, one still has lied! Cuz claims without proof are lies.

We appear to be disagreeing on semantics here. To me, the word "lie" means intentionally misleading somebody. You are not intentionally misleading anybody if you yourself believe what you are saying. For example, I don't actually believe your God exists... but I don't think you are being dishonest either when you say that he does. You are just wrong. From your point of view, I hope you don't think that I am being dishonest either. Perhaps I am just wrong?

I'd call it delusional for one to make up claims about God and think it to be true without proof. A rather delusional liar, rather pathetic.

You are far more harsh than I then. Is this what you think of all Christians, Jews, Hindus, ancient Greek and Egyptian and Norse and Aztec pagans, and others who believe in Gods that are not Allah?

 

[Pygoscelis]

So, why are they wrong? How are you confident they are wrong? They are claims, but are they true? what factors do you consider for you to confidently say someone is a believer in a false God? Try to think more objectively about it, rather than subjectively.

Far more simple for me. I don't believe in theism itself. So I think all Gods are false Gods. You only think all Gods but yours are false Gods. But we agree on all Gods but yours, so you should be able to see my point about the danger of people confusing obedience for morality and farming out their moral decision making to a God that does not actually exist. Your arguments that God knows better than we, so that even if it looks wrong to us, it must still be right, doesn't apply to them, if their Gods are not real.

Why duck and dodge so strenuously to avoid seeing this?

Interesting you say that you are confident about someone believing in a false God, why are you confident about that?

Well now.. you are baiting me here... to say things the mods get uppity about me saying.. but here goes anyway...

First, I am confident that Gods don't exist (in as much as I am confident that other supernatural beings don't exist; since I see no evidence for them - but that is a whole other debate I am not currently interested in - so just accept that this is my vantage point). Second, I take believers (including yourself) at their word. They (and you) say that they believe in the particular God(s) that they describe, and I have no reason to doubt that they do, and their other statements and their actions confirm that they do.

I will always consider those who make claims about God from ignorance, and with no proof, as liars.

The irony of this is that to me, you are somebody who makes claims about God without proof. But I don't see you as a liar.

 

[kritikvernunft]

As far as I know, all the main religions have a command saying do not kill, all countries have a law saying do not kill. So whatever false religion or false nation you belong to, you should still not commit murder.

Given the Qasis, i.e. the Lex Talionis, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, there can impossibly be an absolute ban on any behaviour whatsoever, no matter how evil it could be.

The morality of killing another person is entirely predicated on the history of hostile behaviour causing damage in the other direction. Outside this closure of historical hostility, it is simply not possible to attribute any moral status to killing another person. In other words, there are many circumstances in which killing another person is completely legitimate.

It is entirely false to claim that religion would have a command "do not kill" or that there is an absolutely requirement "not to commit murder", since nobody can take away the victim's right to retaliate against the perpetrator of evil. You are indeed allowed waive your rights under the Qasis to inflict reprisals for hostile acts onto the perpetrator, but there is absolutely never a requirement to do so.

Therefore, I completely and utterly reject you claim as being in gross violation of the Qasis.