Richard Dawkins poses the theory that studying the bible for its literature content is a great thing. However we should not follow its teachings. He feels that ones moral standards should not come from this book or any book for that matter but from someplace deep inside of man instead of outside of man. He stands on the view of morality from religion or faith is born of fear and intimidation of a God or gods that threaten with hell and punishment. He says that we should teach our children the golden rule of do unto others as you would have done unto you. But isn't this a play off of what Christ said? Love your neighbor as you love yourself.
If you take a child from birth and raise him in a controled environment and keep philosophy and moral teachings from him would that child one day better himself for the sheer fact of bettering himself? If this child say developed a habit of biting his caretaker when he didn't like something and we didn't say, "Stop, don't do that! It's bad to behave this way. Treat me as you would like to be treated!" Would that child grow out of the habit of biting and suddenly realize one day, "WOW I should stop that, I bet it hurts."
It's been said that you don't have to teach a child to lie but to tell the truth, you don't have to teach a child to be selfish but to share, so does this suggest that a person is born without morals and needs to be taught them? And if this is the case than is it a peice of evidence that there is a God that is trying to better us?
Obviously if he read the gospels he didn't understand them as they teach a moral standard without any fear or intimidation. There are many people who although not acknowledging Messiah as God in the flesh do nevertheless acknowledge the moral message spoken.
We all have an unbuilt 'moral law', though it varies from person to person. Therefore we cannot be sure that a child brought up without moral teachings would naturally manifest morality on their own. The fact that the world is full of evil commited by man should tell us that any inbuilt morality is insufficient to produce a moral society. Therefore it would appear necessary to teach morals as something to aspire to.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the key theme of the novel 'Lord of the Flies' that without a moral code society completely disintegrates?
Good point and that is one of my favorite stories for this very reason. The atheistic view of Dawkins is simple, now that we have answers to most questions like, is the world flat, do we revolve around the sun, what is gravity what is electricity so on and so forth that we no longer need to believe in mythical things like Gods. He believes in evolution whole heartedly and defends it admorably.
He is by the way a true athiest who has studied, as far as I can tell, all religions and has found that he does not believe in any of them as apposed to the lazy athiest who says there is no God and does not seek him out.
I have not read his book 'The God delusion' but if it is focused on answering questions about origins of the universe, evolution, astronomy, etc, then it would appear that his conclusion for God not existing is that we can explain these things scientifically without resorting to "God dunnit". However, thus far we have no explanation of conciousness from a complex arrangement of base chemicals, or the presence of morality.
Without God, where do we set the baseline for right and wrong?
A relativistic view on morality endorses the acts of Hitler, Stalin, and George W Bush.
I agree with the moral baseline. Culture has blurred what is universaly right and wrong. What's culturaly exceptable does not mean it is right.
Or the Pope - LOLOL
Without God - why would we not burn witches like the bible says.
Iz that wot god sed innit?
Deuteronomy 18:9-13, NIV. "When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord, and because of these detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you. You must be blameless before the Lord your God."
Galatians 5:19-21, NIV. "The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; …drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God."
8:19, TLB. "So why are you trying to find out the future by consulting witches and mediums. Don't listen to their whisperings and mutterings. Can the living find out the future from the dead? Why not ask your God?"
Point out the part where it says to burn them
Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
Nothing about burning. Guess you are right - they should just be murdered any old witch way.
Morals from God.
And I guess if you are defining witch you have to use the bibles definition which would be,
Deuteronomy 18:9-13, NIV. "When you enter the land the Lord your God is giving you, do not learn to imitate the detestable ways of the nations there. Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead............."
Yes burn these people that burn their own children burn them crispy. I agree with God's moral base line.
Another Liar for Jesus huh?
Odd that divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead - involves sacrificing a son or daughter. Weird - because I didn't get that. Did god tell you that into your head?
Glad you agree that those who practice divination or sorcery, interpret omens, engage in witchcraft, or cast spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead - should be murdered. Does that include reading Tarot cards? I guess so huh?
What a fantastic moral baseline.
Burn them crispy huh? Not let god judge? OK - Gotcha.
Umm yep I do and i didn't lie about anything. For someone who is supposedly all about the truth and exposing the falsehoods, which is the impression you give by the way, I think it's funny you pick and choose what you will and will not acknowledge.
Burn them crispy. Falsehoods? No falsehoods here. "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead."
Burn them witches. LOL
I'm in awe of you. Your trying to have a conversation that you are not prepared for. What does old testament law say about the penilty for killing someone? It says that they forfit their life right? So if someone among you in the old testament world is found feeding their kids to a fire I say burn them to a crip themselves. I said nothing of killing a witch.
"Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord, and because of these detestable practices the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you." Does this say burn tarot card readers? Does this say kill em all? Looks to me like it says God will drive them out. So don't suffer them, God will drive them out. Again I say, point out to me where it says to burn them.
No - you are correct. It just says to kill them. My mistake. No burning. Just murdering.
That is OK then? Morally speaking. anyone who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.
Burn them crispy was you.
Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live. Your definition of a witch: who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. I agree with God's moral base line.
You agree with gods moral baseline huh?
How do you kill them if not by burning? Do you prefer to drown them?
Learn to read, that's not what I said What I said is that you are in a conversation you are not prepared for and you just proved it. Sorry dude. You lose this match.
I recant my entire postion. Being that I am not jewish I'm not up on the law of the old testament, perhaps you are? Anyway, if that's what the law says than yes kill them dead, stone them, burn them, drown them in a burlap sack. Whatever. I guess it's a good thing that Christ came to fullfill that law and take it from our hands. Now we don't have to burn anyone. Isn't it great to live in A.D. world?
BTW it's kind of hard to keep up with your argument when you keep editing your previous comments.
Sure - no one murdered any witches in the name of Christ did they? No one has to follow any laws now though? That is awesome. No wonder so many Christians get divorced and commit crimes.
Because they have no moral code to follow.
So - which is it? You keep contradicting yourself in your attempts to demonstrate god's moral baseline,
People have done all sorts of stuff in the name of their religion but it doesn't make it right, like I said before you are not prepared for this conversaiton. You want to have a battle of wits over knowledge when you have wikipedia and bible.com to run off to whenever you want to take something out of context. Look for someone who has devoted his entire life to evolution I would think you would be arguing Darwinism or something like that not trying to debunk a faith you know nothing of.
Correct there is no law, that is why there was the new covenent. "New Testament" verses the old. This is a conversation that I am done with anyway. You have drug this so far off topic it's rediculious.
Morals, you apparently say God has nothing to do with them except instilling the wrong ones. Is that your stance?
One should not follow Richard Dawkins blindly; he is one faulty human beings like everybody among us.
Morals are a subject of Religion and not Science.
Morals come naturally from within of a person if one is righteous and is not selfish; these are also Revealed by the Creator God for benefit of human beings.
Like having sex with 11 year old girls as Allah said?
Mohamed married an 11 year old girl. This is morally acceptable to paarsurry.
Did you not know this?
The Pope says condoms should not be used in Africa. This is a moral baseline.
Not at all, you dismiss other animals that have morals, so your theory falls flat.
Young children who are loved and feel secure, and who have their needs met, will develop some "moral" behaviors just because their brain will develop well under those circumstances. Children tend to come by things like empathy naturally when they're treated with empathy, and see it modeled by parents. I, personally, can't say whether outgrowing a toddler's ego comes naturally at all. Teaching a young child to think of others and care about others is how parents have children who outgrow those "two-year-old's egos". "Teaching", however, doesn't have to include teaching anything Bible- or religious- related.
Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs points out that if the more basic needs of a person (child or adult) are met, that person will/can then go on to aiming toward meeting his "higher-thinking" needs). This would suggest that the potential for that "higher thinking" is in every person. Also, it's now been seen that there is a specific part of the brain associated with morality. I'd assume (and I think I'm right here) that early nurturing plays a substantial role in the development of that part of the brain. (In other words, if you "grow you child's brain correctly" you don't have to teach him quite as much when it comes to right, wrong, selflessness, selfishness, etc.)
So, may answer here is:
You have to teach a child some things - but not everything.
You shouldn't teach children the wrong things (and sometimes un-do some of those right things which they've come by naturally).
You don't have to teach him/her Bible stuff or religious stuff - at all.
Yes, man is capable of morals if/when there's a certain amount of normal brain development. Some morals/potential for morals comes naturally (often as a baby/child grows). Some (particularly those related to social behavior) need to be taught.
It do appear that morals are not innate. They must be taught.
Ethics, as a philosophical study, has focused on reason and intuition to be the basis for moral behavior. There are certain moral beliefs that seem to be innate in human interactions and when we come to moral imperatives that contradict each other in society, reason can often resolve them. Nobody believes in an absolutist morality, even religious people. This is how they are able to disregard certain teachings of the bible that seem irrelevant in our current society despite having a belief that the bible is the word of God.
When belief in God and reason contradict each other most people choose reason. It is the people that don't choose reason that we brand "fanatics" and "terrorists." This is a very small number of people. If morals indeed came from the bible alone then our capacity for reason would be irrelevant to morality. It goes back to the question asked by Plato, "Are things good because God commands them, or does God command them because they are good?" If we accept that God is the sole moral authority of the universe then this paradox is unresolvable.
Is humankind capable of morals? Yes, they are capable of morals. My hub on morals shows exactly what the highest morals of humankind can possibly be, however, even though there is a highest moral standard, it doesn't mean it's achievable.
The hub I wrote is based on the absolute highest moral ground, which would be either strictly by conscience and/or by what some might call "god's will". However, individual rights play a factor, so that means those on that hub are not achievable- which I have yet another hub that explains why not.
Morals are easy to learn.
Steal a bikers motorcycle and his girlfriend and you will learn morals really quickly.
We have had plenty of time to sort out our morals since the first caveman who stole food from another caveman.
The norm of a natural instinct is called morals; obviously one can attain the morals; the messengers prophets of the Creator God showed perfect moral; one such person was Jesus.
by janesix4 years ago
I say we are born knowing right from wrong. People KNOW they are doing something wrong, and yet choose to do it anyway.Our moral compass is a gift from God.Morals are inborn in my opinion.Discuss.
by Dgerrimea7 years ago
Assume for the purposes of this discussion that something like causal determinism is correct. Nothing is fated to happen, but everything will happen because of a prior cause, and as such everything is inevitable.Does...
by SpanStar5 years ago
Compared to people in the past would you say modern-day people are more moral than those since the days of Pharaoh up until present day?The crimes of modern-day man are too numerous to list here.
by SpanStar5 years ago
Having declared ourselves as free thinking righteous believers (meaning we understand the concept of a right and wrong).* Would curtailing shock jock radio announcer's verbal expressions over the airway be immoral?*...
by Grace Marguerite Williams3 years ago
This word oftentimes create quite a visceral reaction. There are many proponents who maintain that in order to be a moral person, one must be religious. They strongly contend that there is NO morality...
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
advancement couple with the increased education and enlightenment of people, will organized religion hopefully become a relic of the past?
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.