That was quite interesting. This whole area is incredibly interesting. I run into a lot of individuals who think that god is the only reason to be moral whatsoever and that if he is left out of the picture, the only thing left is to do whatever I want: give into selfish desires, have an affair, kill people, steal, etc.
Given his statement that violence declines when states are formed... I wonder if the saying I've heard is true: 'People don't need god to behave, they need police.' This was in response to a Philadelphia (I believe) police strike in which once the police laid down arms, the entire city went crazy with violence and looting.
Anyway, I think it is an extremely pertinent topic, especially with how it relates to the subject of this blog. Do we gain a moral sense from anywhere other than evolved senses of empathy for others and the development of intellect in how we perceive the human person?
It's an interesting reflection to think of the golden rule and the fact that it was uttered in a time far before what we would consider the evolution of more peaceful thinking. Why did it take so long to develop it? If this nugget of truth can be claimed as central to Christianity and God's revealed truth, why has it not been employed by all Christians down the line?
My current theory is that an evolutionary or natural morality actually has more explanatory power than god revealing morality through any means. Why? Because core morals are so prevalent through developed and non-developed areas alike. Yes, there are fringe practices due to ignorance (female circumcision, for example), but for the most part, every culture far and wide knows not to murder, steal, hurt the innocent, molest children, rape, etc. Why is this? If morality stems from god's revealed truth, how did entire cultures develop such morality far before they had the privilege of hearing it from Christian missionaries?
I think the concept that a moral sense has been somewhat evolved makes more sense, especially since the 'core' truths have been built upon in much the same rate regardless of religion. By 'built upon', I mean that seeing other races as equal (not just in theory but in practice), allowing women's rights, life/death issues (abortion, contraception, euthanasia) have come to the moral spotlight in parallel with the development of culture and societies, not as a result of revealed truth from God.
It would come pretty close to convincing me on the spot of Christians could show that they had practiced morals far ahead of their time by virtue of their god's revealed truth. Instead, I see morals as having evolved fairly equally wherever situations came about (societies and cultures) which have allowed free thought, debate, discussion, and a people's voice in the government and evolution of law.
For my whole life of nearly 50 years I have been hearing the end is near, Jesus is returning soon, sin and crime are increasing, the world is experiencing more earthquakes, more floods and more wars, the beginnings of birth pains on a build-up to Armageddon. You can only keep people apprehensive and on edge for so long. After while I started thinking I was being duped. When I actually looked at the statistics and see that over time earthquakes are not becoming more frequent, wars are becoming fewer and less destructive, societies are becoming less violent, but the preachers keep on preaching the same old doom and gloom, I realized they were wrong, completely wrong, and blind to any evidence that contradicts their worldview. (Try showing this video to the average fundamentalist) I had to abandon what I always was told was "The Truth" and find out what was really true. Suddenly I had answers that made sense of Bible verses like Matthew 16:28 (I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.) It is almost 2000 years later. After hearing apologists answers that sounded like they came from used car salesmen such as "His kingdom did come at the resurrection"......right... I now think Jesus meant what he said, and that he was mistaken. After 2000 years of waiting, some of us are brave enough to say he was wrong about that, and a lot else. No imminent return, no delayed return, no buildup to Armegeddon.....all of it a fizzle. Now what are we going to do about the blank slate that is the future?
2 comments:
That was quite interesting. This whole area is incredibly interesting. I run into a lot of individuals who think that god is the only reason to be moral whatsoever and that if he is left out of the picture, the only thing left is to do whatever I want: give into selfish desires, have an affair, kill people, steal, etc.
Given his statement that violence declines when states are formed... I wonder if the saying I've heard is true: 'People don't need god to behave, they need police.' This was in response to a Philadelphia (I believe) police strike in which once the police laid down arms, the entire city went crazy with violence and looting.
Anyway, I think it is an extremely pertinent topic, especially with how it relates to the subject of this blog. Do we gain a moral sense from anywhere other than evolved senses of empathy for others and the development of intellect in how we perceive the human person?
It's an interesting reflection to think of the golden rule and the fact that it was uttered in a time far before what we would consider the evolution of more peaceful thinking. Why did it take so long to develop it? If this nugget of truth can be claimed as central to Christianity and God's revealed truth, why has it not been employed by all Christians down the line?
My current theory is that an evolutionary or natural morality actually has more explanatory power than god revealing morality through any means. Why? Because core morals are so prevalent through developed and non-developed areas alike. Yes, there are fringe practices due to ignorance (female circumcision, for example), but for the most part, every culture far and wide knows not to murder, steal, hurt the innocent, molest children, rape, etc. Why is this? If morality stems from god's revealed truth, how did entire cultures develop such morality far before they had the privilege of hearing it from Christian missionaries?
I think the concept that a moral sense has been somewhat evolved makes more sense, especially since the 'core' truths have been built upon in much the same rate regardless of religion. By 'built upon', I mean that seeing other races as equal (not just in theory but in practice), allowing women's rights, life/death issues (abortion, contraception, euthanasia) have come to the moral spotlight in parallel with the development of culture and societies, not as a result of revealed truth from God.
It would come pretty close to convincing me on the spot of Christians could show that they had practiced morals far ahead of their time by virtue of their god's revealed truth. Instead, I see morals as having evolved fairly equally wherever situations came about (societies and cultures) which have allowed free thought, debate, discussion, and a people's voice in the government and evolution of law.
Thanks for the post, John.
For my whole life of nearly 50 years I have been hearing the end is near, Jesus is returning soon, sin and crime are increasing, the world is experiencing more earthquakes, more floods and more wars, the beginnings of birth pains on a build-up to Armageddon.
You can only keep people apprehensive and on edge for so long. After while I started thinking I was being duped. When I actually looked at the statistics and see that over time earthquakes are not becoming more frequent, wars are becoming fewer and less destructive, societies are becoming less violent, but the preachers keep on preaching the same old doom and gloom, I realized they were wrong, completely wrong, and blind to any evidence that contradicts their worldview. (Try showing this video to the average fundamentalist)
I had to abandon what I always was told was "The Truth" and find out what was really true. Suddenly I had answers that made sense of Bible verses like Matthew 16:28 (I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.) It is almost 2000 years later. After hearing apologists answers that sounded like they came from used car salesmen such as "His kingdom did come at the resurrection"......right... I now think Jesus meant what he said, and that he was mistaken. After 2000 years of waiting, some of us are brave enough to say he was wrong about that, and a lot else. No imminent return, no delayed return, no buildup to Armegeddon.....all of it a fizzle. Now what are we going to do about the blank slate that is the future?
Post a Comment