I'm not a Christian at all. Grew up in a Christian school and home but as an adult I've realized most of the dogma is just nonsense. Still, I acknowledge the utility that comes from a shared belief in an objective source for morality, values and principles. So I've worked to adopt many of the same values and morals just minus the belief in some bearded man in the sky meddling in the affairs of humans.

That said, I also recognize the role the Church has historically played in prescribing society/culture a set of morals and values. Given the decline in religious membership and the apparent hypersexualization of society and the declining moral compass it begs the question: absent the Church or some other religious institution then who prescribes society it's moral compass? It seems like absent the Church the State steps in to fill that void. Thoughts?

The idea that if you reduce the prevalence of belief in God/religion in a society, then its people will become more rational, logical, and scientifically grounded, has proven itself to be completely wrong.

— ZUBY: (@ZubyMusic) July 13, 2022

Where do you suppose that "knowingness" comes from? Let's assume the Bible and "God" aren't good answers for this discussion.

But I do agree, some aspects of morality do appear to be inate or "self evident".

Wolfe said:

---

Where do you suppose that "knowingness" comes from? Let's assume the Bible and "God" aren't good answers for this discussion.

But I do agree, some aspects of morality do appear to be inate or "self evident".

---

That's like asking to prove 1+1=2 assuming "math" isn't a good answer.

It comes from the fact that humans are made in God's image. Granted our natures are corrupted, but it's still there.

Ok no. This is a ridiculous response. It's not a "fact" that humans were made in God's image. That's from your faith.... Faith is not fact. It's circular logic to use the Bible as a source to prove it's veracity. Nothing at all like math. With math anyone anywhere in the world can reproduce the problem and get the same solution. No faith required. No dogma. Just facts.

Haven't read the thread, but I saw the mention of Zuby in the first post. He helps with a cartoon called the Tuttle Twins and if you are conservative politically/fiscally, I highly recommend these cartoons to you for your kids. My eldest brother literally gets mad when his son watches without him because they enjoy them so much together.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Bryanisbest said:

---

We divide time between BC and AD. Was there a man named Jesus of Nazareth, mentioned in Jewish history books and the Bible, who walked the earth? If so, who and what was he? CS Lewis wrote that you only have 3 choices about Jesus. He had to be either a liar, a lunatic or who he said he was, the Christ, God's Son. If he was a liar or lunatic there is no moral compass. If He was who He claimed to be then there are two commandments: 1. Love God with all your heart soul and mind. 2. Love others, including enemies, as you love yourself.

---

This will read as very Christian-centric and as a false dichotomy to many people. ie its possible for Jesus to have been a liar or lunatic, but for some other non-Christian objective morality to exist. I'm not suggesting that is the case, but I think it requires very little skepticism to acknowledge that CS Lewis is missing a 4th choice: "Other"

---

Lewis could have added the other but at that point critics would just make him go through every possible belief system, mainly because of their own ignorance of religious and philosophical thought. From what I've read he understood monisim/dualism so at that point it's all you really need to see which systems make reality relative or not. This is exactly why he made the famous statement "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

If false then Christianity is no different than any other belief. It's just relative nonsense like everything else. So Lewis knew his stuff, probably because of his intense educational background with world religions. Before someone gets mad at the relative nonsense part, I'm not saying other cultures are pointless with their surface level traditions and beliefs. I'm saying the end of the story of every religious system outside Christianity (yes this includes materialism and anything else the west created) is relative and therefore pointless in the end.

I'm familiar with eastern philosophy/religions but never heard of Eastern Christianity. The eastern worldview is distinct from the western worldview. Christianity is intrinsically a development of the western world. Western worldviews can be put into 2 camps. The rationalist/scientific worldview and the spiritual religious worldview but they reach the same conclusions ultimately. The universe was created (either by God or a big bang) and as such humans are created (either by God out of clay or by evolution) and it's no wonder the god of Christianity is a carpenter making things. The western worldview sees things are made it created whereas eastern worldviews see the universe as a more holistically grown like a garden. No need for a beginning of an end. Things just "are". At least that's my simplistic interpretation.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

The Banned said:

---

There are two answers to where morality comes from: the religious one and the secular one.

1. God made man and gave us an objective moral code that we must abide by

2. We evolved into intelligent species and discovered that living by these morals helps us grow and prosper.

Problem with #2 is that it's not really the answer some atheists/agnostics think it is. We didn't invent math. We didn't invent physics. We discovered them because they are true. The same goes for morality. The morality was true prior to us acknowledging it. It is objective.

Now, as for how that objective morality (which is intellectual and immaterial) can exist in a universe that came in to being without any intellectual or immaterial beginning makes no sense to me. That's the big question in the whole God/no God debate.

So if someone has to educate the masses on morality (not prescribe one as it is an objective truth), and the masses aren't going to church, it will be the governments job. Problem is they are a couple thousand years behind on the study of human nature and morality, in addition to wanting to keep themselves voted into power, so it doesn't tend to go very well. They tend to tell people what they want to hear.

---

While there is a 'problem' with option 2, I disagree with the problem you've identified because your objection to option 2 still presumes that an objective morality exists. Thus, it isn't really a secular answer to where morality comes from.

I think that an answer to morality more in line with a materialist position is that morality is not objective in a cosmic universal sense. Secular morality can be 'objective' for our practical purposes, but it requires humans to define what the objective is rather than God. This creates an obvious problem for a materialist in defining what is a moral.

I fall in the camp of agreeing with one MEEN's statement below:

Quote:

---

Forewarning, every philosophical framework has drawbacks and will leave you coming up short in your search for moral answers.

---

As far as where morality comes from in the absence of the church? I think it is too simple to say from government. And also too simple to say that it is developed socially or culturally. Human beings are the current product of billions of years of evolution which has given us 'evolved' brains with 'evolved' emotions. I don't use the term 'evolved' as being synonymous with 'good' or 'advanced' - rather I mean that our brains and emotions are byproducts of a process. And for as long as those evolved brains have been able to consider moral questions, humans have been continually changing and updating what morality means to us. Laws, philosophy, ethics, religions are attempts to explain morality. And as humans clump together, meet different humans, learn to cooperate, get new information, gain history, etc. our explanation of morality continues to update.

All moral philosophies are the product of evolved brains and thousands of years of a particular history or philosophy, religion, ethics, politics, war, experience . . . . . . on and on

While religious persons will vehemently object to this statement, I think it is a mistake to object to the proposition that religious morality is something static, especially within religions with long histories. What the church teaches today is not the same as it has always been. What changed? Did the words in the ancient texts change? Did the stories change? Or is the church subject to influence and social evolution just like any other cultural institution?

---

Saying all moral philosophies are the product of an impersonal force causes a lot of issues. If that's the case then everything is devoid of ultimate meaning and therefore relative. Your own universal statement about moral philosophy is arbitrary. Math, logic, and language are just mental fictions. Not to mention it's a theory based on billions of years of unobserved phenomenon. Taking adaptation and using it as a dogmatic assertion that life came from black goo in the universe and then a single cell doesn't give you the justification for anything listed above. It's actually incredible that this narrative is still used today.

The original Christian story is complete. We have a beginning and end. It hasn't changed in the way that you are thinking. Sacrifice was present in the OT just like it is in the NT and today within the Eucharist. Understanding symbolism in the original sense clears all that up anyways. Words have different meanings.

The laws of physics are objective. Math is objective. Why can't morality be objective?

And I was trying to be clear, but may have failed: morality will never "come from" the government anymore than it comes from the church. If morality is an objective truth that we are discovering, rather than something we're making up, there is no one who "give us" our morals. They can only educate us on how morality naturally works (natural law). For example, no one had to give us the teaching that killing innocent kids is wrong. As OP stated, some things are self evident. Other moral truths may not be a readily understandable, but it does not mean they aren't just as objective.

The church has tweaked some teaching, certainly. But when you dig into the changes, they were rather minor changes on how to handle a situation, not the rightness or wrongness of that situation. And most of those changes were not adding a new teaching (it's ok do X now, or wrong to do Y now) but subtracting the things people should not be doing and usually had prior teachings on (chattel slavery is bad, Stop marrying a bunch of women, death penalty isn't necessary anymore, etc). These weren't truths the church made up or changed. They were there all along, and can be found in the Bible more times that not. the church just started doing a better job of educating people on the issues. We can go through them issue by issue, and we'll find it's better enforcement of the moral standard, not a change to the moral standard

It's entirely possible Jesus was a literary creation and not a historical figure. Many historians believe this to be the case. That Josephus Was hired by the Flavian dynasty to create a more docile version of judaism. Not saying this is the case but it's worth noting that none of the gospels were written during the alleged life of Jesus.

That's what you'd call self evident. A=A because it's not distinguished apart from any other letter.

A=A is the same as saying you=you. Can you prove you are you? Yes you can, because you have an experience of you that is self evident. You're conscious awareness of yourself is proof of YOU. A=A because it's not anything else.

Yeah I get that. I already conceded that it is a minority of scholars/historians that subscribe to this theory. I feel it's still noteworthy tho.

There is another theory that Jesus did exist as a historical figure but he didn't die in the cross. He was rescued and taken east where he later married and had children and is buried in the same place as Muhammad I believe. Been a while since I've read about this.

I enjoy exploring these other theories because the theological explaination is way to literal imo. I grew up Southern Baptist and it just seem a little radical imo. What we do know is the true authors of the gospels is unknown. They were all written something like 60-600 years after the death of Jesus. So we don't have a single first hand accounting of Jesus. I'm not aware of one anyway. For me the entirety of the Bible has so much deep truth and wisdom that is immediately applicable in everyday life. But that wisdom and for me the utility is lost with the dogma.

Well whether or not dozens of men got together and created Jesus we do know dozens of men got together and picked which gospels and which texts to adopt into the final cannon. A lot was left out and I'm sorry but if you think that was 100% inspired by God and had no political or self interested motivations then idk what to say. It's niave.

Wolfe said:

---

That's what you'd call self evident. A=A because it's not distinguished apart from any other letter.

A=A is the same as saying you=you. Can you prove you are you? Yes you can, because you have an experience of you that is self evident. You're conscious awareness of yourself is proof of YOU. A=A because it's not anything else.

---

Seems all very circular to me.

Wolfe said:

---

Well whether or not dozens of men got together and created Jesus we do know dozens of men got together and picked which gospels and which texts to adopt into the final cannon. A lot was left out and I'm sorry but if you think that was 100% inspired by God and had no political or self interested motivations then idk what to say. It's niave.

---

I'm not referring to the men who "picked" the gospels (not sure what that means). I'm referring to the men who went to their death proclaiming who Jesus was.

The Banned said:

---

The laws of physics are objective. Math is objective. Why can't morality be objective?

And I was trying to be clear, but may have failed: morality will never "come from" the government anymore than it comes from the church. If morality is an objective truth that we are discovering, rather than something we're making up, there is no one who "give us" our morals. They can only educate us on how morality naturally works (natural law). For example, no one had to give us the teaching that killing innocent kids is wrong. As OP stated, some things are self evident. Other moral truths may not be a readily understandable, but it does not mean they aren't just as objective.

The church has tweaked some teaching, certainly. But when you dig into the changes, they were rather minor changes on how to handle a situation, not the rightness or wrongness of that situation. And most of those changes were not adding a new teaching (it's ok do X now, or wrong to do Y now) but subtracting the things people should not be doing and usually had prior teachings on (chattel slavery is bad, Stop marrying a bunch of women, death penalty isn't necessary anymore, etc). These weren't truths the church made up or changed. They were there all along, and can be found in the Bible more times that not. the church just started doing a better job of educating people on the issues. We can go through them issue by issue, and we'll find it's better enforcement of the moral standard, not a change to the moral standard

---

Brilliant response. Full disclosure I love the topic of where morality comes from. I've been exploring this topic for longer than I can remember. You hit on some great points.

For starters: "If morality is an objective truth that we are discovering, rather than something we're making up..."

Never heard it put this way and tbh I'll need to mull it over because I'm firmly in the latter. I believe we create our own heaven and hell on earth. So we are the source of our own morality. (each does that which is right in his own eyes). However this probably comes from the idea that I also believe the gospels (good news) was that we are each "god" and creators of our own worlds. I believe that's what Jesus was trying to convey, but it got lost.

I understand that my belief means morality is subjective, not objective. I've been operating under the assumption that because we can prove and objective source of morality that it must be 100% subjective. But you describing it as an objective truth that we are discovering feels true to me as well.

Circular is "what is a woman?" Circular Answer: someone who identifies as a woman. We still don't know what that is.

Here's the dictionary definition for a.
A:
noun

noun: A; plural noun: A's; plural noun: As; noun: a; plural noun: as

the first letter of the alphabet.

denoting the first in a set of items, categories, sizes, etc.

denoting the first of two or more hypothetical people or things.

"suppose A had killed B"

the highest class of academic mark.

"a dazzling array of straight A's"

the first fixed quantity in an algebraic expression.

If A has the above listed properties then it's A.

We have a definition. We have a ruler to go by and we can observe the properties of A and compare it to our definition and prove true or false. Anyone anywhere in the world can conduct the same experiment and get the exact same result. That's proof.

I didn't ask what A is. I asked for proof that A=A, the first law of logic, without using circular reasoning.

Quote:

---

I believe we create our own heaven and hell on earth. So we are the source of our own morality. (each does that which is right in his own eyes). However this probably comes from the idea that I also believe the gospels (good news) was that we are each "god" and creators of our own worlds. I believe that's what Jesus was trying to convey, but it got lost.

I understand that my belief means morality is subjective, not objective. I've been operating under the assumption that because we can prove and objective source of morality that it must be 100% subjective. But you describing it as an objective truth that we are discovering feels true to me as well.

---

This is nonsense. You're taking a belief you hold arbitrarily and reading it into the text.

I believe that we all get to do our own morality and the real thing Jesus was trying to convey is that we're all made of cheese. I understand it's subjective, but I'm god so it doesn't matter.

Wolfe said:

---

I'm not a Christian at all. Grew up in a Christian school and home but as an adult I've realized most of the dogma is just nonsense. Still, I acknowledge the utility that comes from a shared belief in an objective source for morality, values and principles. So I've worked to adopt many of the same values and morals just minus the belief in some bearded man in the sky meddling in the affairs of humans.

That said, I also recognize the role the Church has historically played in prescribing society/culture a set of morals and values. Given the decline in religious membership and the apparent hypersexualization of society and the declining moral compass it begs the question: absent the Church or some other religious institution then who prescribes society it's moral compass? It seems like absent the Church the State steps in to fill that void. Thoughts?

The idea that if you reduce the prevalence of belief in God/religion in a society, then its people will become more rational, logical, and scientifically grounded, has proven itself to be completely wrong.

— ZUBY: (@ZubyMusic) July 13, 2022

---

Serious question: If morality isn't based on something that is objective and immutable, how is it ever anything other than utilitarianism or outright autocracy?

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

What we do know is the true authors of the gospels is unknown. They were all written something like 60-600 years after the death of Jesus. So we don't have a single first hand accounting of Jesus. I'm not aware of one anyway.

---

Your facts are really confused.

Who wrote Histories? Who wrote The Odyssey? Who wrote The Republic? If you say "Herodotus" or "Homer" or "Plato" you believe something much less historically reliable than knowing that the answer to "Who wrote the Gospel according to Luke?" is "Luke".

We have multiple first hand accounts of Jesus. The primary one is the Gospel of St John. St Paul's epistles claim first hand experience. St James epistle is that of an eyewitness, and St Luke says that he sourced his from eyewitnesses.

Quote:

---

Well whether or not dozens of men got together and created Jesus we do know dozens of men got together and picked which gospels and which texts to adopt into the final cannon. A lot was left out and I'm sorry but if you think that was 100% inspired by God and had no political or self interested motivations then idk what to say. It's niave.

---

Again.. you're just confused here. No dozens of men ever did what you're describing. It never happened. The formation of the canon was not one of declaration by a council. It was an organic coalescence that happened over centuries as groups who recognized each other as Christians shared writings they held to be scripture with each other. You're calling others naive, but you're displaying an ignorance on this topic.

Quote:

---

For me the entirety of the Bible has so much deep truth and wisdom that is immediately applicable in everyday life. But that wisdom and for me the utility is lost with the dogma.

---

I don't understand the dichotomy you're invoking between "the bible" and "dogma". What are these things in your mind and how are they distinct?

And how can you say that the bible has so much deep truth on the one hand, and then turn around and cast aspersions on it as an arbitrary collection with "so much" left out? You have a lot to work out here. Confused.

---

Did I strike a nerve or something? Look, I'm not trying to offend anyone here or insult anyone. I wasn't calling anyone niave directly. I do stand by my statement that the belief that the King James Bible as we know it today was inspired by God himself and had no political or "worldly" motivation is naive. It doesn't add up to me. Sorry.

"No dozens of men ever did what you're describing. It never happened. The formation of the canon was not one of declaration by a council. It was an organic coalescence that happened over centuries as groups who recognized each other as Christians shared writings they held to be scripture with each other. "

Obviously I didn't mean that literally 12 men sat down one day and declared which texts were to be the official canon. But like you say, they are a collection over time. And these texts were probably passed down orally for many generations before they were ever written down. This is probably why we don't have any " first hand eye witness accounting".

"We have multiple first hand accounts of Jesus. The primary one is the Gospel of St John."

Nothing in the Gospel of John identified the author. It's believed to be the apostle John because it makes referenced to the "loved discipline",or something along those lines. Tbh it's been about 10 yrs or so since I've really dove deep into this topic so I'm entirely open to being wrong here, but that's the way I understand it. If I'm not mistaken John was also written something like 80-100 years after the death of Christ.

As for Luke, I couldn't recall so I did a quick search and found this quote.

"Internal Evidence: Internally, a few distinctive markers are found. First and most noticeably, the author of the Third Gospel writes to one "Theophilus" (Acts 1:3)[1] and seeks to provide an "orderly sequence" (Acts 1:3) of the life of Jesus, after having had "carefully investigated everything from the very first" (1:3) according to what the "original eyewitnesses and servants of the word handed down" (Acts 1:2). From this information, one can gather that the author was not an eyewitness of the events of Jesus's life. But, the author had access to those who had." https://crossexamined.org/wrote-gospel-luke-acts/

So no, I don't believe Luke was the author of the Gospel of Luke either.

"I don't understand the dichotomy you're invoking between "the bible" and "dogma". What are these things in your mind and how are they distinct?"

Whether or not the Gospels we're written by the disciples of any first hand witness doesn't mean there aren't lessons there to be learned. Same for the old testament. I read a chapter of Proverbs every day growing up. Every month I'd have completed the entire book. My only point here is that taking the text literally (dogmatically... As in incontrovertibly true) forces one to deny what their own senses tell them. I'm to believe a snake talked to Adam and Eve? That the Red Sea literally parted or that God spoke to Moses in the burning bush? Isn't it more reasonable to assume these are a collection of metaphors intended to impart some deeper truths and wisdoms?

"And how can you say that the bible has so much deep truth on the one hand, and then turn around and cast aspersions on it as an arbitrary collection with "so much" left out? You have a lot to work out here. Confused."

Because I'm not consumed by dogma. That's why. I can read it and interpret it as a metaphor and find the lessons. The Gnostic gospels (that were left out) also have parts that impart great wisdom. So does Buddhism and Taoism. It is the very definition of dogmatic to assume only one book is true and that book was absolutely inspired by God himself and No wisdom can be found anywhere else.... That's just nonsense imo. We can read many books, learn from many faiths and religious and worldviews and I bet there's a grain of truth in all of them.

These arguments are frequently used but they're bad. 60 years after an event is completely reasonable. That's like suggesting we can't have accurate primary sources from Vietnam or about the Beatles or the Space Race. No one would ever make that argument. Herodotus wrote about Thermopylae some 60 years after the fact and no one even begins to use these arguments against it.

And you completely ignored the point that we know Luke and John etc wrote their works because I they the name of Luke and John on them, we have no evidence of them ever circulating under any other names, and we know that the four gospels were circulating together in the early second century as a collection (hence they had names), etc etc.

Didn't strike a nerve, you're just reading poorly reasoned arguments and they're confusing you.