Samhain

Reading George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God I came upon an interesting idea. I'm not sure if this has been discussed recently or not, I personally have not seen it. Anyway, a curious statement was raised in the book, and I was wondering if it seems logically correct to assume the validity of the statement.

Many theists have an objective moral code to follow portrayed by the particular religious doctrine. The doctrine containing said "commandments" is supposedly objective since it derives from a supernatural source (in this case, a god or gods) and is independent from man. If said god or gods exist, then we are born within this moral order created by the god(s) and one's duty is to obey the dictates of his supernatural lawgiver. Therefore, doesn't this morality serve the said god(s) rather than serving man?

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]

[ April 22, 2002: Message edited by: Samhain ]</p>

dk

Morality in principle articulates the right order of human-conduct that regulates (grounds) behavior in terms of right and wrong (good & evil) to reliably actualize human potential through loving relationships and self-knowledge. Ethics is the scientific application of moral principles in different relationships, circumstances and situations. For morality to be objective it must be external to humankind but reasonable derived from human nature (not God’s nature) under the Natural Law. Animals aren’t subject to moral principles because they intrinsically lack reason, free will and creative potential (virtue). When people behave immorally their actions and aspirations embody consequences destructive to the actors, but not limited to the actors. Therefore, everyone is subject to moral principles whether they believe in God or not. Morality doesn’t serve God but people, it is the Divine Law that reveals God’s Nature and is the inspiration that actualizes revelation like the Bible (and traditions of reliable men). God created man in his Image with free will, so when people behave immorally they wrongfully suffer and promulgate the injustices of the world, not God’s wrath.

[ April 19, 2002: Message edited by: dk ]</p>

abe smith

BRIGHT SKEPTICS LIKE US shd set a good example by our scrupulously-correct spelling & grammar, OK? My impression is that the original post at this thread shd be titled "WHOSE morality?", OK? The spelling "who's" is a contraction for "who is...". Yeah, picky picky picky Grandpa

Samhain

Yea, I realized that. It's not "who is" morality, but rather who the morality applies to. Therefore "whose" morality. Just exercising my poetic license, I guess. I was thrown into over-analyzation on the title, wondering if "who's" shows possession, etc. etc. I just decided to go with that as a "what the hell" sort of mindframe, I guess I could change it.

case

This was a joke, right?

Samhain,

I haven't read enough of the book to have seen that argument. I don't know that I would entirely agree with it. I think this assumes that that the supernatural creator of said morality would have his own objectives in mind. If we assume that a supernaturally ordained morality is what we must follow, it would be prudent to ask why the supernatural creator made this particular morality; why make it wrong to commit adultry, murder, ect. Does this morality benifit mankind or the creator?

I think this leads us to a problem: assume any morality, or moral code, was made by a creator. Let us assume it is for our benifit. This would imply that the creator would want to make things easy for us. But why would the creator want to do this? What is he basing his decision on? Doesn't this imply that the creator is being guided by some moral guideline? But "whose"? If the creator didn't have a pre-existing morality, why would he care what morality he gave us? If he didn't have a pre-existing notion of morality, why would he care if I coveted my neighbor's wife? Where, oh where did the creator get his morality?

Now let us take the opposite position: the creator made morality, but for his benifit. This still implies that the creator had some set of guidelines that he was following. It still implies that the creator had some moral guideline he was going by when making ours. It implies that the creator had a sense of right and wrong. But how? Where did the creator's morality come from?

I've gotten way off the subject here, havn't I? Does Smith cover any of this in his book?

Case