The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality

Published on 10-25-2012 11:39 PM Number of Views: 45622

46 Comments

All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
All you need is love (all together now)
All you need is love (everybody)
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.

~ The Beatles (1967)

This article presents an objective, naturalistic, scientific theory of morality. It is presented as an answer to the religious argument that there would be no objective morality without God and the equally fallacious secular argument that there is no objective morality at all. It is based on the same fundamental principles that have guided modern physicists to discover the unified laws of nature. To understand it, we first must review the essential nature of science and the historical trajectory that has led to the modern unified theories.

Objectivity, Symmetry, and Invariance
The essence of science is objectivity and the essence of objectivity is invariance under transformation. Harvard philosopher Robert Nozick explained this in his article Invariance and Objectivity where he describes the nature of objective facts or truths as follows:

First, an objective fact is accessible from different angles. It can be repeated by the same sense (sight, touch, etc.) at different times, it can be repeated by different senses of one observer, and by different observers. Different laboratories can replicate the phenomenon.
The second mark of an objective truth, related to the first, is that there is or can be intersubjective agreement about it.
The third feature concerns independence. If p is an objective truth, then it holds independently of people's beliefs, desires, hopes, and observations or measurements that p.
An objective fact is invariant under various transformations. It is this invariance that constitutes something as an objective truth and it underlies and explains the first three features.

Nozick unified and grounded our concept of objectivity by explaining all its features in terms of a single concept - invariance under transformation. This commonsensical definition is the very root of why we believe there is an "objective world" independent of ourselves. We pick up an object, rotate it, look at it under different light, tap on it. We show it to others and ask what they see. Some properties remain invariant no matter how we or others investigate it; we call those properties objective facts.

Nozick's definition of objectivity coincides exactly with the mathematical definition of symmetry. A geometrical object is symmetric with respect to a given transformation if its shape remains unchanged. The two most obvious symmetries are reflection and rotation. An object with bilateral symmetry looks the same when reflected in a mirror. An object with rotational symmetry looks the same when rotated through a given angle. For example, the appearance of a square remains invariant when it is rotated by 90^o. A circle is the most symmetric of all two dimensional objects because it can be rotated through any angle without variation.

Symmetry principles have recently become the fundamental unifying concept of physics, as noted by theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg:

Symmetry principles have moved to a new level of importance in this century, and especially in the last few decades: there are symmetry principles that dictate the very existence of all the known forces of nature.

Countless physicists have chimed in with similar observations. For example, Christopher Martin, in his article On Continuous Symmetries in the Foundation of Physics says this:

It is difficult to overstate the significance of the concept of symmetry in its many guises to the development of modern physics. Indeed, on could reasonably argue that twentieth-century physics with its pillar achievements of successful physical theories of spacetime/gravitation and the electromagnetic and nuclear interactions merits calling that century the "Century of Symmetry." For symmetry played a key part in each of these developments.

To understand the profound significance of these statements, we need to briefly review the history of physics.

Unification and Symmetry: The Historical Trajectory of Science
Scientific theories are designed to give a comprehensive explanation of a body of facts in terms of a few elementary principles. Successful theories reveal the underlying unity of apparently diverse phenomena. A Theory of Everything, often called the Holy Grail of physics, would give a fully unified explanation of all physical phenomena within a single theoretical framework based on a small set of axioms. If found, it would be a solution to the sixth of the twenty-three unsolved problems listed by mathematician David Hilbert in 1900. He suggested that physics should be axiomatized much as Euclid established the theory of Geometry on five axioms in his Elements (ca. 300 BCE). Isaac Newton made the first great step towards solving Hilbert's sixth problem when he laid the axiomatic foundation of Classical Mechanics in his Three Laws of Motion:

An object remains at rest or moves in a straight line with constant velocity v unless acted on by a force F.
The force F is equal to the rate of the change in momentum (mv). For a body of constant mass m, the acceleration a is related to the force F by the equation F = ma.
For every action caused by force F there is an equal and opposite reaction given by -F.

Maxwell's Equations

These three simple laws (principles, axioms) unified our understanding of the motion of objects, enabling us to both explain and predict related facts. But there were other phenomena such as light, electricity, and magnetism that required their own independent explanations so physicists were stuck with four disparate theories: a theory of mechanics, a theory of light, a theory of electricity, and a theory of magnetism. This all changed in 1861 when James Clerk Maxwell unified the latter three in a single theory of Electromagnetism that required only four elegant and compact axiomatic equations. There now were only two theories that required unification - Electromagnetism and Newtonian Mechanics.

The unification of Newtonian Mechanics and Electromagnetism was a daunting problem because the two theories are invariant under different transformations that are not consistent with each other. They could not both be true without contradicting the definition of objectivity, the very heart of science. Newtonian Mechanics is invariant under Galilean transformations whereas Electromagnetism is invariant under Lorentz transformations. To resolve this problem, Einstein focused on the fact that the speed of light, c, was itself a constant (invariant) in Maxwell's equations, and so concluded that it was Newtonian Mechanics that must be modified to be Lorentz invariant. The result was his Special Theory of Relativity which not only unified Mechanics and Electromagnetism, but also unified space and time itself into a single ontological unity - spacetime. In the words of Minkowski:

Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.

And of course the central equation of Einstein's new theory, e = mc², revealed the underlying unity of energy and matter. This shows the power of symmetry principles: At a time time when most people were still traveling in horse and buggy, Einstein revolutionized our understanding of space, time, mechanical motion, and energy by revealing their unity based on symmetry. This harkens back to the Plato's understanding of symmetry, which he said "creates the greatest unity possible" as noted in the introduction to Symmetries in Physics : Philosophical Reflections:

Symmetry is an ancient concept. Its history starts with the Greeks, the term summetria deriving from sun (with, together) and metron (measure) and originally indicating a relation of commensurability (such is the meaning codified in Euclid’s Elements, for example). But symmetry immediately acquired a further, more general meaning, with commensurability representing a particular case: that of a proportion relation, grounded on (integer) numbers, and with the function of harmonizing the different elements into a unitary whole: “The most beautiful of all links is that which makes, of itself and of the things it connects, the greatest unity possible; and it is the proportion (summetria) which realizes it in the most beautiful way” (Plato, Timaeus, 31c).

Harmony, unity, beauty, science, and objectivity are themselves all subsumed in the concept of symmetry. These qualitative concepts became quantitative in 1918 when Amalie Emma Noether published her theorem that proved that any symmetry of spacetime would have a corresponding conserved quantity. Suddenly all the conservation laws of physics such as conservation of linear momentum, angular momentum, and energy, were derived from first principles. Anthony Zee expressed his excitement at this discovery in his fabulous review of this topic called Fearful Symmetry:

Conservation of energy, momentum, and angular momentum are among the first laws that one learn when studying physics. Together, they govern the movement of everything in the physical universe, from the collision of galaxies to the whirl of the electrons in atoms. For years, I did not question where these conservation laws came from; they seemed so basic that they demanded no explanation. Then, I heard about Noether's insight and I was profoundly impressed. The revelation that these basic conservation laws follow from the assumption that physics is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow; here there and everywhere; east, west, north, and south, was for me, as Einstein put it, essentially spiritual.

Einstein used the same principles to unify our understanding of Gravity by extending his principle of relativity to include general covariance of the laws. Quantum physicists followed his lead and now all physics is based fundamentally on symmetry principles. Space prohibits further review. It suffices to note that the trajectory of physics has been one of discovering ever greater unity based upon symmetry. This is the same pattern that I follow in my theory of morality.

The Logic of Love: A Natural Moral Theory

Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. The full answer lies in the achievement of interpersonal union, of fusion with another person, in love.

~ The Art of Loving by Erich Fromm (1956)

The moral theory I propose is intended to be objective in the same sense as our theories of physics described above. Therefore we must begin, like Einstein, to see if there are any invariant moral principles. The answer is not long to find. If there is any invariant moral principle, it is the Golden Rule. Here are a few examples from all over the planet:

Christianity	All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. Matthew 7:1
Confucianism	Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state. Analects 12:2
Buddhism	Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. Udana-Varga 5,1
Hinduism	This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.Mahabharata 5,1517
Islam	No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself. Sunnah
Judaism	What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. Talmud, Shabbat 3id
Taoism	Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss. Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien
Zoroastrianism	That nature alone is good which refrains from doing to another whatsoever is not good for itself. Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5

Now look at the principle itself - it is symmetric under an interchange of Self and Other! This means our search for invariance has led to a principle that is itself symmetric. If this isn't the Holy Grail of Moral Theory, I don't know what could be.

There is another invariant associated with morality: Love. A person with no love is a person with no morality. Furthermore, love is the "motive force" in all moral reasoning. This is most evident in the formulation of the Golden Rule attributed to Jesus, "Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself." And what is the nature of love? It is closely related to, if not identical with, the concept of unity. It is a kind of symmetry. Thus we arrive at my objective moral theory which is based on two symmetrically related axioms and two ontologically primitive concepts: Self and Love:

Self Love: This is the axiom that a Self loves Self because Self is one by definition. A Self naturally desires its own well-being. For a Self to exist, it must be a unified integrated whole.
Reflective Love: Self views Other as Self in love. Love is the unity of Self and Other. Self Love is reconciled with Reflective Love through the logic of the Golden Rule. This is the principle of moral symmetry, fairness, justice. All moral statements must be symmetric under an interchange of person A and person B.

The first axiom is analogous to Aristotle's law of identity: A is A. Identity is necessarily unity and the simplest symmetry. The second axiom symmetrically relates Self and Other. It is my assertion that these two axioms explain all our moral intuitions. Therefore, this theory is scientific in the sense that it can be falsified if we find moral intuitions that it contradicts or fails to explain. It is an objective, naturalistic, scientific theory of morality.

Both principles are founded in the most basic and universal moral intuitions shared by all humanity and any objection is immediately shown to violate one of the two principles. The Golden Rule (Reflective Love) stands above all other moral principles as explained by Professor R. M. MacIver in his article The Deep Beauty of the Golden Rule (provided online by Google Books):

Do to others as you would have others do to you. This is the only rule that stands by itself in the light of its own reason, the only rule that can stand by itself in the naked, warring universe, in the face of the contending values of men and groups.

There also is another approach that really gets to the heart of the matter. My argument is a "left brained" analytic approach to morality. The "right brained" holistic approach is much simpler. It subsumes both principles in a single concept - Universal Love for all sentient beings. This is an objective standard because any rational observer could, in principle, discern between what is or is not more loving. To refute this argument, it would have to be shown that people cannot objectively determine what is more loving. Put together, we have a "whole brained" approach to the understanding objective morality:

Left Brain, Analytic	Right Brain, Holistic
1) Self Love: All rational beings desire the best for themselves. 2) Reflective Love: Moral symmetry, fairness, do unto others as you would have them do to you.	Universal Love for all sentient beings.

Despite its clarity, many theists will attempt to refute the analytic form of my argument because it defeats their moral argument for God. This is a great irony because the two principles were taught by Christ when he said "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself" (Matthew 22:39). His statement includes both principles of Self-love and the Golden Rule, and is best described as Universal Love so it encompasses both forms of my argument. Another irony leaps out when Christians oppose the analytic form because they unwittingly imply that they lack love for others when they say that there would be no morality without God. They forget love - the first principle of morality - when they argue that morality is based on mere rules dictated by a god.

Some people may be confused by the first principle because they have been taught that self-love is contrary to love for others. Nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, loving others is impossible without self-love. American psychologist Erich Fromm eloquently explained this in his book The Art of Loving. He was a masterful logician of love. His book has been hailed as one of the most important of the Twentieth Century. Fifty-six years ago he isolated and articulated the two axioms of my objective theory of morality. I was thrilled to find his work after I had formulated my theory. Here is the relevant extract from his book (pg 58). He first clarifies the illogical conflation of self-love and selfishness, and then explains the Golden Rule:

These questions arise: Does psychological observation support the thesis that there is a basic contradiction and a state of alternation between love for oneself and love for others? Is love for oneself the same phenomenon as selfishness, or are they opposites? Furthermore, is the selfishness of modern man really a concern for himself as an individual. with all his intellectual, emotional, and sensual potentialities? Has “he” not become an appendage of his socioeconomic role? Is his selfishness identical with self-love or is it not caused by the very lack of it?

Before we start the discussion of the psychological aspect of selfishness and self-love, the logical fallacy in the notion that love for others and love for oneself are mutually exclusive should be stressed. If it is a virtue to love my neighbor as a human being, it must be a virtue---and not a vice---to love myself since I am a human being too. There is no concept of man in which I myself am not included. A doctrine which proclaims such an exclusion proves itself to be intrinsically contradictory. The idea expressed in the Biblical “Love thy neighbor as thyself!” implies that respect for one’s own integrity and uniqueness, love for and understanding of one’s own self, can not be separated from respect for and love and understanding of another individual. The love for my own self is inseparably connected with the love for any other self.

We have come now to the basic psychological premises on which the conclusions of our argument are built. Generally, these premises are as follows: not only others, but we ourselves are the “object” of our feelings and attitudes; the attitudes toward others and toward ourselves, far from being contradictory, are basically conjunctive. With regard to the problem under discussion this means: Love of others and love of ourselves are not alternatives. On the contrary, an attitude of love toward themselves will be found in all those who are capable of loving others. Love, in principle, is indivisible as far as the connection between “objects” and one’s own self is concerned. Genuine love is an expression of productiveness and implies care, respect, responsibility, and knowledge. It is not an “affect” in the sense of being affected by somebody, but an active striving for the growth and happiness of the loved person, rooted in one’s own capacity to love.

From this it follows that my own self, in principle, must be as much an object of my love as another person. The affirmation of one’s own life, happiness, growth, freedom, is rooted in one’s capacity to love, i.e., in care, respect, responsibility, and knowledge. If an individual is able to love productively, he loves himself too; if he can love only others, he can not love at all.

Fromm hammered this point home on page 63 where he quoted Meister Eckhart as stating that absolute symmetry between Self and Other is required for true love, which is unity:

These ideas of self-love cannot be summarized better than by quoting Meister Eckhart on this topic “If you love yourself, you love everybody else as you do yourself. As long as you love another person less than you love yourself, you will not really succeed in loving yourself, but if you love all alike, including yourself, you will love them as one person and that person is both God and man. Thus he is a great and righteous person who, loving himself, loves all others equally”

This is the logic of love. Our moral intuitions are fundamentally based on love for Self and Other modulated through the symmetric logic of the Golden Rule.

The Beatles got it right. All you need is love.

Attached Files

phylogenetic-tree.jpg (80.4 KB, 16 views)

46 Comments

Hugh391 - 10-26-2012, 09:10 AM
- Reply
Hi Richard,
I really think you are on to something here. I do not grasp the mathematics that well but there is something profound about love and morality and the unity of being. Thanks for the thoughts. Hugh

Richard Amiel McGough - 10-26-2012, 09:38 AM
- Reply
Hey there Hugh, I'm glad you emphasized that point. Love and Unity are profoundly integrated concepts.

CWH - 10-28-2012, 05:34 AM
- Reply
The Logic of Love is very simple: no need to go through all those jess and scientific jargons:
1) Love God with all your heart, soul and might
2) Love your neighbor as yourself

You can't use science to prove morality and love. Why don't you try to prove God or Good and Evil scientifically with formulas. Worse still, you can't use the Beatles as an icon of Love and morality with their drug abuse, sex, hippieism, Atheism, psychedelic songs. Yes, all you need is love.... Love God with all your heart, soul and might and Love your neighbor as yourself.

The equation of Morality is as thus:

Morality = the knowledge of Good + Evil (which was why Adam and Eve was ashamed of their nakedness the moment they knew good and evil).
Good = Morality - the knowledge of Evil
Evil = Morality - the knowledge of Good

God is Love.

Richard Amiel McGough - 10-28-2012, 05:23 PM
- Reply
Originally Posted by CWH

The Logic of Love is very simple: no need to go through all those jess and scientific jargons:
1) Love God with all your heart, soul and might
2) Love your neighbor as yourself

Scientific and philosophic terminology is not "jargon." It is highly specific language like in mathematics and electronics which has been developed to advance our ability to think clearly and to arrive at solutions to complex problems. It enables us to build rockets to the moon and computers and cell phones. It is essential to having authentic understanding of the world we live in.

Your suggested "Logic of Love" is similar to mine, but your first premise has no content. What does it mean to "love God?" Which God? Why God? No one knows even if God exists. How can you love something or someone that you don't even know?

That's why my theory of morality is superior. It does not depend on speculations about metaphysical entities that can't be known. It begins with what everyone knows - what every really knows personally. Self and Love:

1) Self Love: Self loves Self because Self is one.
2) Reflective Love: Self views Other as Self in love. This is the root of the Golden Rule: Love thy neighbor as thyself. It is moral symmetry.

Thus we have actual UNDERSTANDING of morality that your theory does not give. Your theory is based on an empty phrase "Love God" which has no real meaning because no one knows anything about any God except what other people have told them in a book or whatever. Now if by "God" you mean "everything and everyone" including your own self, then your theory reduces to the same as mine.

Originally Posted by CWH

You can't use science to prove morality and love.

Of course we can prove morality scientifically. But we don't need to prove love because it is a primitive concept though we could say a lot about it scientifically since it is based in our biology. For example, there are chemicals that are associated with love like oxytocin.

Originally Posted by CWH

Why don't you try to prove God or Good and Evil scientifically with formulas. Worse still, you can't use the Beatles as an icon of Love and morality with their drug abuse, sex, hippieism, Atheism, psychedelic songs. Yes, all you need is love.... Love God with all your heart, soul and might and Love your neighbor as yourself.

Your comment is a perfect example of how religious prejudices confuse people about morality. There is nothing wrong withe sex! And the fact that the Beatles used drugs does not mean that they abused drugs, and even if they did it wouldn't mean that we should not use their song "All you need is love" as an anthem because that song communicates the truth. Truth is truth. You need to think clearly on these issues. Merely declaring that "hippieism" is morally wrong is insane. Hippies are like the first Christians in a lot of ways. They are filled with the spirit of peace and love. For you to hate them shows a profoundly ignorant prejudice against something you don't know merely because you have a false image that they contradict your fundamentalist religion. That's why religion is so destructive to good morals and good logic. Religion is based on ignorance and prejudice and hatred against anyone who disagrees with your dogmas.

Originally Posted by CWH

The equation of Morality is as thus:

Morality = the knowledge of Good + Evil (which was why Adam and Eve was ashamed of their nakedness the moment they knew good and evil).
Good = Morality - the knowledge of Evil
Evil = Morality - the knowledge of Good

God is Love.

How do your "equations" explain anything? They don't make any sense to me. What does it mean to subtract "the knowledge of evil" from morality? That doesn't make any sense at all. And besides that, you did not even define good and evil. My theory defines good and evil in terms of Self and Love and the symmetric principle of the Golden Rule. It gives us real understanding of morality without any reference to a god because no god has anything to do with morality.

David M - 10-29-2012, 03:00 AM
- Reply
Hello to all

Here are some of my thoughts on the subject:

Given that man is capable of coming up with a definition for love and for morality which does not involve God, how do you get everyone to accept the definition and abide by it? It would be good for everyone to have an innate love towards their neighbor and did that which humans define as morally "good", but the majority (which society proves by example) does not.

What then is the moral solution for anyone who does not meet the definition that man has made? How are you going to change a sick society? As it is now, can it ever be changed unless it starts with the government of that society? It would seem that humans have to learn; they have to be guided. It is not enough to think that we all have the same innate moral values.

Who can know the human mind and what humans will do than God the creator? Man thinks he knows better than God and only time would prove that is not the case, but man is on a path of self-destruction and so time is running out.

The human condition was summed up by Jeremiah. Now we could say that God inspired hJeremiah to write this, or if you think Jeremiah thought this up himself, then surely we ought to come to the same conclusion as Jeremiah. If we do come to the same conclusion, it does not hold much for the future for mankind. This is what Jeremiah wrote:

Jeremiah 10:23 I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

So then, can man exist without making some rules for the society in which he lives (no man can be an island unto himself)?

So, if man is to make up his own rules, how do we know these are the best rules that can be made up?

We might think that we would never kill or rape another person, but we can be guilty of coveting and lying etc. and so this proves we are not perfect and we do not practice the highest form of love and morality. As all flawed persons, how can we ever better ourselves as a society?

God knew what he was doing when he created man and knew that man with the freedom to chose, would not live according to God's high ideals. However, this does not prove God was wrong to create man in the way He has. God's only begotten Son in the person of the man Jesus, proved God was correct. God is vindicated by the life of Jesus. Jesus is the only person to have lived a sinless life. Could Jesus have done this alone without guidance from his mother Mary and/or his Heavenly Father (God)? Jesus lived by rules, he lived by the law and as Jesus said, he came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it.

Jesus also summed up the law and gave us the two great commandments. It might be accepted by man that man made up the second commandment; "to love thy neighbor as thyself" (ignoring the fact that people hate themselves and therefore hate their neighbors). Man will not accept the first and greatest commandment; Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy body, and with all thy mind.

Why is it that man does not want to love God? There is nothing to fear by those who love God and there is nothing bad to be gained from doing so. It is only the people who do not love God or the concept of loving God, that will be on the receiving end of God's wrath on the people and the nations which they form and which act in abominable ways. They live in ignorance only fearing what man is bringing on the earth. God will destroy those who are destroying the earth. We can leave God do to act according to His word and worry about ourselves who by rights is guilty of not being 100% moral (even according to man's standard). In God's sight all have sinned and all are guilty, but thanks to be to God for providing our salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord.

If we have any measure or standard to measure up against, it has to be Jesus, who lived an acceptable life before God and of whom no-one could accuse Jesus of sin. This is the standard by which God will judge us all. If Jesus represents the plumb-line which is perfectly upright (righteous) then the amount of lean we each exhibit shows how far from upright we are. We have to be honest with ourselves and recognize that we do not measure up to the standard of Jesus and in so doing that should make us humble before Jesus and before God. If we do not recognize that we are sinners, then as John says; (1 John 1:8) If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we have sin, then we cannot be morally perfect. We might not believe in God, but nevertheless, the same sin that is committed against God is the same sin that is committed against "our neighbor" as defined by the moral standard set by man. If you think the moral standard set by man does not include the sin of breaking say the last 7 commandments, then I would say that man's standard is inferior to God's standard.

That is all for now.

David

Richard Amiel McGough - 10-29-2012, 10:40 AM
- Reply
Originally Posted by David M

Hello to all

Here are some of my thoughts on the subject:

Given that man is capable of coming up with a definition for love and for morality which does not involve God, how do you get everyone to accept the definition and abide by it? It would be good for everyone to have an innate love towards their neighbor and did that which humans define as morally "good", but the majority (which society proves by example) does not.

What then is the moral solution for anyone who does not meet the definition that man has made? How are you going to change a sick society? As it is now, can it ever be changed unless it starts with the government of that society? It would seem that humans have to learn; they have to be guided. It is not enough to think that we all have the same innate moral values.

Hey there David,

Glad you joined in the conversation. The concept of love is fundamental to our concept of being human. The word was not defined by the Bible - on the contrary, it is used in the Bible as a concept that the reader is expected to understand. Love exists in all cultures. Consider a person with no love or care for others at all. What do we call such a person? INHUMAN.

There is a biological evolutionary basis for self-love. The instinct for self-preservation is strongly selected for by natural selection because any organism lacking it would not survive. This fundamental instinct is then extended to group survival in higher primates and is founded in such things as mirror neurons and hormones like oxytocin:
Oxytocin is a powerful hormone. When we hug or kiss a loved one, oxytocin levels drive up. It also acts as a neurotransmitter in the brain. In fact, the hormone plays a huge role in pair bonding. Prairie voles, one of nature's most monogamous species, produce oxytocin in spades. This hormone is also greatly stimulated during sex, birth, breast feeding, and the list goes on.
Mirror neurons cause a person to feel what the other person experiences and so form a biological basis of empathy. We are social organisms - it is in our biology. And when these biological antecedents are processed by our big brains and language we abstract the essential concept and come to understand that love for self and others are inextricably bound together. A mother's love is universally understood. The bond between mother and child is the archetype of love for self and other because the baby physically emerged from the mother. They were one and they become two. This is the process of individuation. A neglected baby suffers severe developmental problems.

To suggest that there is "man's definition" of love as opposed to a "biblical definition" makes no sense to me at all. If you want to pursue this argument, you will have to show me the Biblical definition and how it differs from "man's definition."

Originally Posted by David M

Who can know the human mind and what humans will do than God the creator? Man thinks he knows better than God and only time would prove that is not the case, but man is on a path of self-destruction and so time is running out.

The human condition was summed up by Jeremiah. Now we could say that God inspired hJeremiah to write this, or if you think Jeremiah thought this up himself, then surely we ought to come to the same conclusion as Jeremiah. If we do come to the same conclusion, it does not hold much for the future for mankind. This is what Jeremiah wrote:

Jeremiah 10:23 I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?

So then, can man exist without making some rules for the society in which he lives (no man can be an island unto himself)?

So, if man is to make up his own rules, how do we know these are the best rules that can be made up?

We might think that we would never kill or rape another person, but we can be guilty of coveting and lying etc. and so this proves we are not perfect and we do not practice the highest form of love and morality. As all flawed persons, how can we ever better ourselves as a society?

First, I think you have confused authentic morality with societal rules. Societal rules are not necessarily moral as we know because we judge many societal rules as immoral. Real morality cannot be captured in a list of rules. We have moral intuitions of what is right and wrong. And what are those intuitions based on? The essential key is self-love and the Golden Rule - we place ourselves in the place of the other and ask if we would want to be subject to the same things as the other. This is how we teach morality to our children. We ask them "How would you like it if I did that to you?". It is an objective test of morality because the answer is accessible to each person. This is the highest moral teaching of the Bible:
Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Jesus said that the whole body of rules and regulations pronounced in the Old Testament are summed up in the Golden Rule. And he explicitly included the concept of self-love when he stated it in the form "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

There are two big problems with your appeal to Jeremiah 17:9 as a general revelation of the condition of all hearts. First, it implies that YOUR heart is desperately wicked and so you cannot trust any of your interpretations of the Bible. Thinking you are guided by the Holy Spirit doesn't help, because folks with opposite opinions can claim the same thing. Therefore, the only solution is to assume that our minds work sufficiently well to give reliable answers based on logic and fact.

The second problem is that there are many verses that contradict the idea that the human heart is so wicked as to be unable to discern true morality. For example:
Micah 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
This verse uses standard human words that are understood by all cultures - justice, love, mercy, humility. The concepts are assumed to be understood by the reader. If not, then we could never know what the Bible means. Another example:
Luke 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
If there is no such thing as a "good man" then this verse is without meaning. This is confirmed again in the parable of the sower:
Matthew 13:23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
The "good ground" represents the heart of the person who hears, understands, and practices the word preached. If you application of Jeremiah 17:9 is correct, then there is no such thing as a "good heart" and again the teaching of Jesus is seen to be false.

This shows how the Bible often functions as a Rorschach ink blot that each person interprets according to the traditions they received and their own preferences. The only way to avoid such errors is to study the Bible using logic and facts that are objective - that is, that can be tested by each individual to see if they are true or false. This then answers your question "if man is to make up his own rules, how do we know these are the best rules that can be made up?". My theory presents an objective test to see if something is moral or not. If it does not violate these two principles:

1) Self Love: Self loves Self because Self is one.
2) Reflective Love: Self views Other as Self in love. This is the root of the Golden Rule: Love thy neighbor as thyself. It is moral symmetry.

This is the highest teaching of the Bible.
- 1 John 2:9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. 10 He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. 11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.
- 1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
- 1 John 4:12 12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
- 1 John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. 16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. 17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. 19 We love him, because he first loved us. 20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.
Note the test implied by the highlighted question. No one can see God, so the idea of "God" cannot answer any of our moral questions. The only moral test is if love is shown to others.

Originally Posted by David M

God knew what he was doing when he created man and knew that man with the freedom to chose, would not live according to God's high ideals. However, this does not prove God was wrong to create man in the way He has. God's only begotten Son in the person of the man Jesus, proved God was correct. God is vindicated by the life of Jesus. Jesus is the only person to have lived a sinless life. Could Jesus have done this alone without guidance from his mother Mary and/or his Heavenly Father (God)? Jesus lived by rules, he lived by the law and as Jesus said, he came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it.

I have no idea what you mean when you speak of "God's high ideals." When I read the Bible, I see its pages filled with violence commanded by Yahweh. I see little that looks like "high ideals." If the biblegod is the true God, then he had all the choices in the world. Nothing compelled him to create a world filled with such horrors, and certainly there was nothing that compelled him to institute gross immorality in his very law! I'm talking about things like perpetual slavery (Lev 25:44-46), the genocidal murder of every man, woman, and child in the promised land, except 32,000 virgins who were then distributed to the very soldiers who slaughtered every person they ever loved, the Inextricable Sexism of the Bible, and so on and so forth. Your appeal to "God's high ideals" seems entirely out of step with what the Bible actually states.

Originally Posted by David M

Jesus also summed up the law and gave us the two great commandments. It might be accepted by man that man made up the second commandment; "to love thy neighbor as thyself" (ignoring the fact that people hate themselves and therefore hate their neighbors). Man will not accept the first and greatest commandment; Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy body, and with all thy mind.

Why is it that man does not want to love God? There is nothing to fear by those who love God and there is nothing bad to be gained from doing so. It is only the people who do not love God or the concept of loving God, that will be on the receiving end of God's wrath on the people and the nations which they form and which act in abominable ways. They live in ignorance only fearing what man is bringing on the earth. God will destroy those who are destroying the earth. We can leave God do to act according to His word and worry about ourselves who by rights is guilty of not being 100% moral (even according to man's standard). In God's sight all have sinned and all are guilty, but thanks to be to God for providing our salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Where did you get the idea that "man does not want to love God?" Are you not a man? Why do you, and all other Christians, Catholics, Muslims, etc. spend their lives seeking to "love God" if "man does not want to love God?"

The truth is simple to see. Folks cannot believe in the biblegod because he is not the true God. The Bible attributes many moral abominations to him. And this proves that we have a moral standard that does not depend on God or that the Bible is not the Word of God, because otherwise we would have no problem with the moral abominations it attributes to him.

And most importantly - what does it mean to say that God has provided "salvation" through Jesus Christ? How does that work? Christians are no better than anyone else. And you believe that most Christian beliefs are wrong. Specifically, you reject the central doctrine of the Trinity that defines all Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and the vast majority of Protestants. How then can those people be "saved" if they believe the LIE that a mere man (Jesus) was actually the true God? And if they can be saved despite such gross error, how could anyone not be saved? Would not God be grossly irrational saving folks who believe a lie about Jesus but not folks who believe good things about Jesus but just don't happen to believe the Bible is true in all respects? In other words, the "Gospel" makes no sense to me at all. It is fundamentally irrational and unjust. Why should any sinner get into heaven if not all? What makes one sinner "better" than another? Simplistic answers will never convince a rational skeptic (which every person should be else they will believe falsehood).

Originally Posted by David M

If we have any measure or standard to measure up against, it has to be Jesus, who lived an acceptable life before God and of whom no-one could accuse Jesus of sin. This is the standard by which God will judge us all. If Jesus represents the plumb-line which is perfectly upright (righteous) then the amount of lean we each exhibit shows how far from upright we are. We have to be honest with ourselves and recognize that we do not measure up to the standard of Jesus and in so doing that should make us humble before Jesus and before God. If we do not recognize that we are sinners, then as John says; (1 John 1:8) If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we have sin, then we cannot be morally perfect. We might not believe in God, but nevertheless, the same sin that is committed against God is the same sin that is committed against "our neighbor" as defined by the moral standard set by man. If you think the moral standard set by man does not include the sin of breaking say the last 7 commandments, then I would say that man's standard is inferior to God's standard.

That is all for now.

David

The last seven commandments? So the Sabbath Law, which God gave exclusively to Israel as a sign between him and them, is now elevated to a "moral standard"? I think that is quite obviously false.

Your concept of "man's moral standard" makes no sense. There is no other standard. This is the same error you have frequently repeated when you speak of "human logic" vs. "God's logic." We know nothing of any "God logic." We are all humans so we are limited to "human logic" which is just "logic."

All the best,

Richard

David M - 10-30-2012, 01:57 AM
- Reply
Hello Richard
There are some words that you are right to point out which I need to clarify and I should have been more specific with my words. On the other hand, you have not addressed the four questions I raised in my thoughts and your reply at times seems to be not related to what I was saying. The first paragraph is one such example.

Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
Hello to all

Here are some of my thoughts on the subject:

Given that man is capable of coming up with a definition for love and for morality which does not involve God, how do you get everyone to accept the definition and abide by it? It would be good for everyone to have an innate love towards their neighbor and did that which humans define as morally "good", but the majority (which society proves by example) does not.

What then is the moral solution for anyone who does not meet the definition that man has made? How are you going to change a sick society? As it is now, can it ever be changed unless it starts with the government of that society? It would seem that humans have to learn; they have to be guided. It is not enough to think that we all have the same innate moral values.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

Hey there David,

Glad you joined in the conversation. The concept of love is fundamental to our concept of being human. The word was not defined by the Bible - on the contrary, it is used in the Bible as a concept that the reader is expected to understand. Love exists in all cultures. Consider a person with no love or care for others at all. What do we call such a person? INHUMAN.

There is a biological evolutionary basis for self-love. The instinct for self-preservation is strongly selected for by natural selection because any organism lacking it would not survive. This fundamental instinct is then extended to group survival in higher primates and is founded in such things as mirror neurons and hormones like oxytocin:
Oxytocin is a powerful hormone. When we hug or kiss a loved one, oxytocin levels drive up. It also acts as a neurotransmitter in the brain. In fact, the hormone plays a huge role in pair bonding. Prairie voles, one of nature's most monogamous species, produce oxytocin in spades. This hormone is also greatly stimulated during sex, birth, breast feeding, and the list goes on.
Mirror neurons cause a person to feel what the other person experiences and so form a biological basis of empathy. We are social organisms - it is in our biology. And when these biological antecedents are processed by our big brains and language we abstract the essential concept and come to understand that love for self and others are inextricably bound together. A mother's love is universally understood. The bond between mother and child is the archetype of love for self and other because the baby physically emerged from the mother. They were one and they become two. This is the process of individuation. A neglected baby suffers severe developmental problems.

To suggest that there is "man's definition" of love as opposed to a "biblical definition" makes no sense to me at all. If you want to pursue this argument, you will have to show me the Biblical definition and how it differs from "man's definition."

I never claimed the Bible has given us a definition of love, but the word "love" has been defined by man for we can easily look up what the word means in the dictionary.
You give facts that have been found out by scientists, who in the main are atheist and it is their perspective. If you are going to discuss things in the Bible, then from the Bible perspective all things have been created.
There were 4 questions in my opening paragraph and you have not answered one of them in order to help me understand how the world's problem is to be solved.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

First, I think you have confused authentic morality with societal rules. Societal rules are not necessarily moral as we know because we judge many societal rules as immoral. Real morality cannot be captured in a list of rules. We have moral intuitions of what is right and wrong. And what are those intuitions based on? The essential key is self-love and the Golden Rule - we place ourselves in the place of the other and ask if we would want to be subject to the same things as the other. This is how we teach morality to our children. We ask them "How would you like it if I did that to you?". It is an objective test of morality because the answer is accessible to each person. This is the highest moral teaching of the Bible:
Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Jesus said that the whole body of rules and regulations pronounced in the Old Testament are summed up in the Golden Rule. And he explicitly included the concept of self-love when he stated it in the form "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."

I might be mixing up societal rules with authentic morality, but we have a major problem that needs fixing. The Golden Rule as you refer to it is key, but alas society by enlarge does not practice it to its full extent.
By the way, when you talk of love, we are talking about an emotion and as we both know, when emotions are involved, people do not think logically; therefore your title 'The logic of love' makes no sense to me.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

There are two big problems with your appeal to Jeremiah 17:9 as a general revelation of the condition of all hearts. First, it implies that YOUR heart is desperately wicked and so you cannot trust any of your interpretations of the Bible. Thinking you are guided by the Holy Spirit doesn't help, because folks with opposite opinions can claim the same thing. Therefore, the only solution is to assume that our minds work sufficiently well to give reliable answers based on logic and fact.

I think that Jeremiah, like me is generalizing. You can find examples of some men and women whose heart was not "desperately wicked" and whose heart was right with God, but for the vast majority of people in the "world", this is not the case, or else we would not have the wars, the injustices, the hatred and violence we see in the world today and that has gone on down the ages.
I would not say that my heart is desperately wicked even though in my mind it is possible to have evil thoughts. It is frightening to think what I might do, if I did not have some mental restraint preventing me from acting on the thoughts that go on inside my head. As Jesus said to his disciples; be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. To catch a criminal, one sometimes has to think like a criminal, but that does not make one a criminal unless they act on those criminal thoughts and commit crime.
I can admit to having an evil side to my nature, but I do my best to restrain myself. A wicked heart might be the cause for how the Bible has been interpreted and the way the Bible has been used as an excuse for the bad things that were done in the name of religion.
The Bible is the inspired word of God (whether you accept that or not) and therefore, the heart of man does not come into this, but if you believe the Bible is not inspired then you have cause to think that the Bible has been written written by desperately wicked men. God through Jeremiah is telling us like it is and the problem is with men and not God.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

The second problem is that there are many verses that contradict the idea that the human heart is so wicked as to be unable to discern true morality. For example:
Micah 6:8 He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

I see no contradiction unless you are tarring everyone with the same brush. As I said above, Jeremiah is generalizing and some people have an innate goodness and very little evil intent in them. In general, this is not the same for everyone and the vast majority of people in "the world" (which is the enemy of God) have a lot of wickedness in them. We can discuss what the perfect individual should be like and the emotions of love etc a perfect individual should have. This can be an academic exercise, but this is academic exercise is not how it is seen to pan out in practice amongst the vast majority in the world.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

This verse uses standard human words that are understood by all cultures - justice, love, mercy, humility. The concepts are assumed to be understood by the reader. If not, then we could never know what the Bible means. Another example:
Luke 6:45 A good man out of the good treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is good; and an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil: for of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaketh.
If there is no such thing as a "good man" then this verse is without meaning. This is confirmed again in the parable of the sower:
Matthew 13:23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.
The "good ground" represents the heart of the person who hears, understands, and practices the word preached. If you application of Jeremiah 17:9 is correct, then there is no such thing as a "good heart" and again the teaching of Jesus is seen to be false.

This shows how the Bible often functions as a Rorschach ink blot that each person interprets according to the traditions they received and their own preferences.

Jeremiah is not saying that there is never such a thing as a "good heart". Jeremiah is making a generalization and even if we consider that Jeremiah is talking about one specific heart which is "desperately wicked", how would one know it? Who is capable of knowing the wickedness of a person and the evil intent they will do?

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

The only way to avoid such errors is to study the Bible using logic and facts that are objective - that is, that can be tested by each individual to see if they are true or false. This then answers your question "if man is to make up his own rules, how do we know these are the best rules that can be made up?". My theory presents an objective test to see if something is moral or not. If it does not violate these two principles:

1) Self Love: Self loves Self because Self is one.
2) Reflective Love: Self views Other as Self in love. This is the root of the Golden Rule: Love thy neighbor as thyself. It is moral symmetry.

I agree that this is a good test as it gets to the core of our being which is our motives.
Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

This is the highest teaching of the Bible.

1 John 2:9 He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is in darkness even until now. 10 He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there is none occasion of stumbling in him. 11 But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes.
1 John 3:14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
1 John 4:12 12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
1 John 4:15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. 16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. 17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. 19 We love him, because he first loved us. 20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also.

Note the test implied by the highlighted question. No one can see God, so the idea of "God" cannot answer any of our moral questions. The only moral test is if love is shown to others.
I do not at first sight see what the problem is that because we cannot see God somehow is a reason for our moral questions not to be answered. Does it make any real difference if we communicate by video phone or by ordinary telephone. Communication takes place even though we might not be in the physical presence of the other person. God might not be seen by us, but God sees us and God has communicated with us and the Bible we can take to be a communication from God.
When Jesus came on the scene, he was able to reveal the nature of God in the best way possible. Just as God made man in His image, so Jesus, God's only begotten Son, was able to reveal that image in the perfect way. I think to say that we cannot see God, is to make an excuse. This does not stop us showing love to one another and that is a good test by how much we actually do that. It would need someone to observe a person all of the time and to record there actions and to decide when and when not loving others as self is being practiced. I think this is very difficult to do in practice.
The fact is that the Creator has created a human brain capable of recording everything of significance we have done in our lives and is therefore a record of our life. It is not surprising that in the Day of Judgement when the Bible says (2 Corinthians 5:10) For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
It will be easy for God to make the judgment based on all that we have done in our lives. Our mind will be an open book to God.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

I have no idea what you mean when you speak of "God's high ideals." When I read the Bible, I see its pages filled with violence commanded by Yahweh. I see little that looks like "high ideals." If the biblegod is the true God, then he had all the choices in the world. Nothing compelled him to create a world filled with such horrors, and certainly there was nothing that compelled him to institute gross immorality in his very law! I'm talking about things like perpetual slavery (Lev 25:44-46), the genocidal murder of every man, woman, and child in the promised land, except 32,000 virgins who were then distributed to the very soldiers who slaughtered every person they ever loved, the Inextricable Sexism of the Bible, and so on and so forth. Your appeal to "God's high ideals" seems entirely out of step with what the Bible actually states.

When I said "high ideals" it was said with two thoughts in mind. The first is the high standard which God requires. Anything offered to God has to be perfect. It is not good enough to offer second best. All individuals are imperfect even though some of us might attempt to live by God's high standards. Because we have all failed, then it might seem like a standard that cannot be attained and therefore, God's standard is an ideal.

God did not create a world with horrors. The horrors have come about by man's actions. God is using against man, what man does to his fellow man. You have to blame man and not God. You might call it a horror that God uses the same force that man will inflict on one another, but God is judging according to His standards and as such we who are guilty of failing to meet those standards cannot stand and criticize God for destroying reprobates and a reprobate society.
I do not think I am out of step with what the Bible teaches and how God wants us to live. God knows the vast majority who make up the "world", which is the enemy of God and the world will perish, and it will be the relatively few by comparison (though this will be a large number), who will be saved and will enjoy God's eternal kingdom on this earth that will come in the future.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

Originally Posted by David M

Jesus also summed up the law and gave us the two great commandments. It might be accepted by man that man made up the second commandment; "to love thy neighbor as thyself" (ignoring the fact that people hate themselves and therefore hate their neighbors). Man will not accept the first and greatest commandment; Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy body, and with all thy mind.

Why is it that man does not want to love God? There is nothing to fear by those who love God and there is nothing bad to be gained from doing so. It is only the people who do not love God or the concept of loving God, that will be on the receiving end of God's wrath on the people and the nations which they form and which act in abominable ways. They live in ignorance only fearing what man is bringing on the earth. God will destroy those who are destroying the earth. We can leave God do to act according to His word and worry about ourselves who by rights is guilty of not being 100% moral (even according to man's standard). In God's sight all have sinned and all are guilty, but thanks to be to God for providing our salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Where did you get the idea that "man does not want to love God?" Are you not a man? Why do you, and all other Christians, Catholics, Muslims, etc. spend their lives seeking to "love God" if "man does not want to love God?"

I am using the word "man" in a generalized sense. It would have been better to use the word "world", which I have done in my replies above. The vast majority of people who are in the "world" do not love God as can be seen by their actions. Lip service does not count. This is what God said of His own chosen people and is typical of the world in which God appears to be worshiped. (Isaiah 29:13) Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

The truth is simple to see. Folks cannot believe in the biblegod because he is not the true God. The Bible attributes many moral abominations to him. And this proves that we have a moral standard that does not depend on God or that the Bible is not the Word of God, because otherwise we would have no problem with the moral abominations it attributes to him.

"The truth is simple to see", I agree, but your statement that follows is false. I am a "folk" that can believe the biblegod as you refer to the God I believe. You have formed your own opinion and it is your opinion that the Bible is not the inspired word of God and that the writers of the Bible have created a biblegod. I have no problems you say are moral abominations. I can see that they are moral abominations who do not recognize that judgment and justice has been exercised.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

And most importantly - what does it mean to say that God has provided "salvation" through Jesus Christ? How does that work? Christians are no better than anyone else. And you believe that most Christian beliefs are wrong. Specifically, you reject the central doctrine of the Trinity that defines all Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and the vast majority of Protestants. How then can those people be "saved" if they believe the LIE that a mere man (Jesus) was actually the true God? And if they can be saved despite such gross error, how could anyone not be saved? Would not God be grossly irrational saving folks who believe a lie about Jesus but not folks who believe good things about Jesus but just don't happen to believe the Bible is true in all respects? In other words, the "Gospel" makes no sense to me at all. It is fundamentally irrational and unjust. Why should any sinner get into heaven if not all? What makes one sinner "better" than another? Simplistic answers will never convince a rational skeptic (which every person should be else they will believe falsehood).

I thought with all your Bible study you would know how the salvation through Jesus the Christ works. Because of all the problems you cite, this is why God can be the only judge capable of deciding who will be selected in the day of judgment. It is not for me to worry about what other people believe, it is important to worry about what I believe and which I discuss here, and whether my heart is right before God. I might be seen as a heretic to say that Jesus is not God, and I will let God judge my sincerity in how I have come to that conclusion.

You quoted in your reply Micah 6:8 He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? and as you say, we naturally understand what "to love" and "to do justly" means, but how many will actually walk (spiritually) humbly with God? You are not doing this as far as I can tell.

This is what the psalmist writes; (Psalm 24:18) The LORD is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.
And what does God say; (Isaah 66:2) but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.

To find acceptance before God, we must show humility and contriteness. If we do not then we are puffed up by our own pride. If I am wrong in my thinking and my interpretation of God's word, I ask for God's forgiveness and if it is against His will that I proclaim the Gospel and the truth as I understand it, then God can stop me. However, God can let us all continue as we are doing, for our conversations do nothing to stop his purpose being fulfilled and God knows who are His chosen ones. In fact, I have this assurance (2 Timothy 2:19); Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

The last seven commandments? So the Sabbath Law, which God gave exclusively to Israel as a sign between him and them, is now elevated to a "moral standard"? I think that is quite obviously false.

This was my error going from memory; I should have said; the last six (maybe five). I did not intend the Sabbath to be included and I meant to exclude anything that related to God in the context of the point I was making.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

Your concept of "man's moral standard" makes no sense. There is no other standard. This is the same error you have frequently repeated when you speak of "human logic" vs. "God's logic." We know nothing of any "God logic." We are all humans so we are limited to "human logic" which is just "logic."

How is it you are introducing logic when I do not? Where in my post you are replying to, have I mentioned "God's logic"?

I do not expect you to understand, especially as you are not reading the Bible with the mind's filters of faith applied. You have your own set of mind filters applied. You do not understand the Bible as I do and therefore, we are not in agreement. I have been speaking of man-made morals and this is what you are arguing. Because you exclude God from this, you say, man's morals can only be of man's making. Either man abides by a set of rules and boundaries that have been set by men, or else man is reliant upon having an innate moral code which is either bad or good or both. How good is man's innate moral code when such rampant evil is taking place in the world? If a person does not want to conform to a moral code and has no good moral code innate within them, what are you going to do about it to fix the problem?

I have agreed your benchmark, so what is your conclusion of the "world" in general, when you apply your benchmark? I look forward to your answers to my questions.

All the best

David

CWH - 10-30-2012, 08:29 AM
- Reply
Scientific and philosophic terminology is not "jargon." It is highly specific language like in mathematics and electronics which has been developed to advance our ability to think clearly and to arrive at solutions to complex problems. It enables us to build rockets to the moon and computers and cell phones. It is essential to having authentic understanding of the world we live in.

"Jargon" is not a bad name, what I am saying is that there is no need to go through complex formulas and theories to come to a simple understanding of Morality.

Your suggested "Logic of Love" is similar to mine, but your first premise has no content. What does it mean to "love God?" Which God? Why God? No one knows even if God exists. How can you love something or someone that you don't even know?

I don't see God the way you see as an invention of primitive men. Funny, the God that created the earth and the heavens is plural. Therefore, whatever God that we named on earth ultimately is refering to the Creator God(plural). I see God as a Super intelligent force that is so intelligent that He could create plants, animals, planets, sun(fusion energy), matter etc. at will. If you can do that that then you can declare yourself as God. Will humans one day in the distant future be like God(plural) capable of creating, plants, animals, olanets, suns, matter etc. at will? I have no doubt about that. Only when humans have reached that stage of advanced technology, we can then become part of that Super intelligent force. But whether we humans can do it alone without external help from that Super intelligent force, I remains doubtful.

That's why my theory of morality is superior. It does not depend on speculations about metaphysical entities that can't be known. It begins with what everyone knows - what every really knows personally. Self and Love:

1) Self Love: Self loves Self because Self is one.
2) Reflective Love: Self views Other as Self in love. This is the root of the Golden Rule: Love thy neighbor as thyself. It is moral symmetry.

Your theory is no more superior than mine; it has no meaning but a self declared prophesy, what is "Self loves Self is one"? and what is "Self view Other as Self in love"?.... Sounds illogical.

Thus we have actual UNDERSTANDING of morality that your theory does not give. Your theory is based on an empty phrase "Love God" which has no real meaning because no one knows anything about any God except what other people have told them in a book or whatever. Now if by "God" you mean "everything and everyone" including your own self, then your theory reduces to the same as mine.

"God" sounds illiogical to you because you believe it is an invention from the minds of primitive men based on your atheist dogma whereas I see it as a super intelligent force which we will one day be part of that family.

Of course we can prove morality scientifically. But we don't need to prove love because it is a primitive concept though we could say a lot about it scientifically since it is based in our biology. For example, there are chemicals that are associated with love like oxytocin.

If you can prove morality scientifically, then show me the formula. If Oxytocin and other chemicals produce love then get everybody injected with oxytocin and the "love chemicals" and there will not be any hatred, cruelty or war in this world!....Brillliant!

Your comment is a perfect example of how religious prejudices confuse people about morality. There is nothing wrong withe sex! And the fact that the Beatles used drugs does not mean that they abused drugs, and even if they did it wouldn't mean that we should not use their song "All you need is love" as an anthem because that song communicates the truth. Truth is truth. You need to think clearly on these issues. Merely declaring that "hippieism" is morally wrong is insane. Hippies are like the first Christians in a lot of ways. They are filled with the spirit of peace and love. For you to hate them shows a profoundly ignorant prejudice against something you don't know merely because you have a false image that they contradict your fundamentalist religion. That's why religion is so destructive to good morals and good logic. Religion is based on ignorance and prejudice and hatred against anyone who disagrees with your dogmas.

What have hippieism achieved? World peace and love? or is it Free Love and Drugs and Punk music?
Hippieism is dead and outdated; hardly anyone believe in hippieism nowadays. "All you need is Love" is a known hippie anthem/song.

How do your "equations" explain anything? They don't make any sense to me. What does it mean to subtract "the knowledge of evil" from morality? That doesn't make any sense at all. And besides that, you did not even define good and evil. My theory defines good and evil in terms of Self and Love and the symmetric principle of the Golden Rule. It gives us real understanding of morality without any reference to a god because no god has anything to do with morality.

The equation is simple and it makes sense:
Morality requires both knowledge of good/right and bad/wrong.
Morality is doing what is known as good/right and abstaining from doing what is bad/wrong; therefore,
Morality = knowledge of Good/Right - knowledge of Bad/Wrong.
Thus Good = Morality - knowledge of Bad/Wrong.

Immorality is doing what is known as bad/wrong whilst abstaining from doing what is good/right; therefore,
Immorality = knowledge of Bad/Wrong - knowledge of Good/Right.
Thus Bad = Morality - knowledge of Good/Right.

Is this too profound for an intelligent man like you? Wiki defines Good and Evil even better:

"good direction being morally positive, and the evil direction morally negative".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_and_evil

God Bless Morality.

Richard Amiel McGough - 10-30-2012, 09:27 AM
- Reply
Originally Posted by David M

Hello Richard
There are some words that you are right to point out which I need to clarify and I should have been more specific with my words. On the other hand, you have not addressed the four questions I raised in my thoughts and your reply at times seems to be not related to what I was saying. The first paragraph is one such example.

I never claimed the Bible has given us a definition of love, but the word "love" has been defined by man for we can easily look up what the word means in the dictionary.
You give facts that have been found out by scientists, who in the main are atheist and it is their perspective. If you are going to discuss things in the Bible, then from the Bible perspective all things have been created.
There were 4 questions in my opening paragraph and you have not answered one of them in order to help me understand how the world's problem is to be solved.

Good morning David,

I will begin by answering your four questions:

Given that man is capable of coming up with a definition for love and for morality which does not involve God, how do you get everyone to accept the definition and abide by it?
I answered this question - the meaning of "love" is known to all people in all cultures because it is a fundamental characteristic of what it means to be human. We don't need to focus on the definition. It's a good starting point.

What then is the moral solution for anyone who does not meet the definition that man has made?
All words are "man's definition." There are no other kinds of words. "Man" did not "make" the definition of "love" any differently than any other word in human language. It is confusion to talk about "man's definitions" as if there were any other kind of definition of any word.

How are you going to change a sick society?
Through knowledge, education, and clarification of our understanding of reality. The primary problems are based on a failure to act on love, justice, fairness, truth.

As it is now, can it ever be changed unless it starts with the government of that society?
Why would anyone think that government is a solution? My moral theory is just that - a theory to understand our moral intuitions. Questions about how to implement our understanding is a matter of pragmatics.

Originally Posted by David M

I might be mixing up societal rules with authentic morality, but we have a major problem that needs fixing. The Golden Rule as you refer to it is key, but alas society by enlarge does not practice it to its full extent.

One of the reasons folks don't practice the Golden Rule is because they have been taught morality is based on ordinances and regulations. So they have lost sight of the way. For example, most religious folks are taught that there would be no morality without God. Thus, they lose sight of the connection between what they do and morality. And worse, they are taught that horrible moral abominations like genocide, sexism, and slavery are not immoral because God commanded such things in the Bible. Thus their moral sense is corrupted by religion.

Originally Posted by David M

By the way, when you talk of love, we are talking about an emotion and as we both know, when emotions are involved, people do not think logically; therefore your title 'The logic of love' makes no sense to me.

Yes, love involves emotions, but there is a lot more to it. I chose the phrase "Logic of Love" because love is like the electricity and logic is like the circuitry in a computer. Without love, there would be no understanding of morality at all.

Originally Posted by David M

I think that Jeremiah, like me is generalizing. You can find examples of some men and women whose heart was not "desperately wicked" and whose heart was right with God, but for the vast majority of people in the "world", this is not the case, or else we would not have the wars, the injustices, the hatred and violence we see in the world today and that has gone on down the ages.

It is interesting that you do not take Jeremiah 17:9 as universal. It seems to contradict your assertion that "The human condition was summed up by Jeremiah." Also, it seems inaccurate to say that the "vast majority of people in the world" have "desperately wicked hearts." Most wars are started by a few people in power - and we know the old saying, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." There is no reason to think that the vast majority of people are bad. That directly contradicts what I've experienced throughout the 53 years of my life. The vast majority of people are good and understand love and fairness and seek the good. I've met very few people I would call "desperately wicked."

Originally Posted by David M

I would not say that my heart is desperately wicked even though in my mind it is possible to have evil thoughts. It is frightening to think what I might do, if I did not have some mental restraint preventing me from acting on the thoughts that go on inside my head. As Jesus said to his disciples; be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. To catch a criminal, one sometimes has to think like a criminal, but that does not make one a criminal unless they act on those criminal thoughts and commit crime.
I can admit to having an evil side to my nature, but I do my best to restrain myself. A wicked heart might be the cause for how the Bible has been interpreted and the way the Bible has been used as an excuse for the bad things that were done in the name of religion.

From a Christian perspective, you describe yourself as an unregenerate - a person who has not had his heart transformed by the Holy Spirit. From a non-Christian perspective, you describe yourself like a person with deep psychological conflicts. Is it really true that you don't trust your own self? How can a self be divided against itself?

Originally Posted by David M

The Bible is the inspired word of God (whether you accept that or not) and therefore, the heart of man does not come into this, but if you believe the Bible is not inspired then you have cause to think that the Bible has been written written by desperately wicked men. God through Jeremiah is telling us like it is and the problem is with men and not God.

I find it very strange that you consistently assert that the Bible is the word of God even though you have no reason supporting that idea. The only reason you have ever given is that there are some fulfilled prophecies in the Bible. But when we discussed it, we found that they are not any where near sufficient to convince a rational skeptic. But even if they were, they still would say nothing about which books belong in the Bible or even if God intended you to believe that the Bible was "his word." So your position is fraught with profound intellectual problems. Simply stated, you are basing your beliefs on the traditions you have been taught. How do you know that Philemon is supposed to be in the Bible? How do you know that the apocrypha is not? You don't.

Originally Posted by David M

I see no contradiction unless you are tarring everyone with the same brush. As I said above, Jeremiah is generalizing and some people have an innate goodness and very little evil intent in them. In general, this is not the same for everyone and the vast majority of people in "the world" (which is the enemy of God) have a lot of wickedness in them. We can discuss what the perfect individual should be like and the emotions of love etc a perfect individual should have. This can be an academic exercise, but this is academic exercise is not how it is seen to pan out in practice amongst the vast majority in the world.

Again, the vast majority of people are good. Most of the serious problems in the world are caused by a few with too much power.

My theory of morality is not an "academic exercise" and it is not based on the "emotion" of love. Love is a concept that speaks of relation between people. Not mere emotion, but the bond that connects us with other humans. A child, who knows nothing of words either thrives or declines depending on if it is given care, nurture, and love.

Originally Posted by David M

Jeremiah is not saying that there is never such a thing as a "good heart". Jeremiah is making a generalization and even if we consider that Jeremiah is talking about one specific heart which is "desperately wicked", how would one know it? Who is capable of knowing the wickedness of a person and the evil intent they will do?

Perhaps the greatest harm done by religion is that it teaches humans are wicked. Thus it teaches the self to hate itself, and a self that hates itself is the only wicked heart that ever was! Thus, religion is a source of wickedness, not a solution to it.

Originally Posted by David M

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

The only way to avoid such errors is to study the Bible using logic and facts that are objective - that is, that can be tested by each individual to see if they are true or false. This then answers your question "if man is to make up his own rules, how do we know these are the best rules that can be made up?". My theory presents an objective test to see if something is moral or not. If it does not violate these two principles:

1) Self Love: Self loves Self because Self is one.
2) Reflective Love: Self views Other as Self in love. This is the root of the Golden Rule: Love thy neighbor as thyself. It is moral symmetry.

I agree that this is a good test as it gets to the core of our being which is our motives.

Excellent.

But it is more than a test. It is a theory based on two axioms and two ontologically primitive concepts (Self and Love) that explain our moral intuitions. Thus we don't need any religion or any god to tell us what is good or bad. We innately know it because of who and what we are.

Originally Posted by David M

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

Note the test implied by the highlighted question. No one can see God, so the idea of "God" cannot answer any of our moral questions. The only moral test is if love is shown to others.

I do not at first sight see what the problem is that because we cannot see God somehow is a reason for our moral questions not to be answered. Does it make any real difference if we communicate by video phone or by ordinary telephone. Communication takes place even though we might not be in the physical presence of the other person. God might not be seen by us, but God sees us and God has communicated with us and the Bible we can take to be a communication from God.

The question is not if God could "communicate" to us. The question was "what is the test for if something is moral?". The test is how we treat others. The Golden Rule. That was my point.

Originally Posted by David M

When Jesus came on the scene, he was able to reveal the nature of God in the best way possible. Just as God made man in His image, so Jesus, God's only begotten Son, was able to reveal that image in the perfect way. I think to say that we cannot see God, is to make an excuse. This does not stop us showing love to one another and that is a good test by how much we actually do that. It would need someone to observe a person all of the time and to record there actions and to decide when and when not loving others as self is being practiced. I think this is very difficult to do in practice.

That was my point. We don't need God in the equation at all. We know good from evil by how it affects others. Morals come from what we are as humans, not God.

Originally Posted by David M

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

I have no idea what you mean when you speak of "God's high ideals." When I read the Bible, I see its pages filled with violence commanded by Yahweh. I see little that looks like "high ideals." If the biblegod is the true God, then he had all the choices in the world. Nothing compelled him to create a world filled with such horrors, and certainly there was nothing that compelled him to institute gross immorality in his very law! I'm talking about things like perpetual slavery (Lev 25:44-46), the genocidal murder of every man, woman, and child in the promised land, except 32,000 virgins who were then distributed to the very soldiers who slaughtered every person they ever loved, the Inextricable Sexism of the Bible, and so on and so forth. Your appeal to "God's high ideals" seems entirely out of step with what the Bible actually states.

When I said "high ideals" it was said with two thoughts in mind. The first is the high standard which God requires. Anything offered to God has to be perfect. It is not good enough to offer second best. All individuals are imperfect even though some of us might attempt to live by God's high standards. Because we have all failed, then it might seem like a standard that cannot be attained and therefore, God's standard is an ideal.

God did not create a world with horrors. The horrors have come about by man's actions. God is using against man, what man does to his fellow man. You have to blame man and not God. You might call it a horror that God uses the same force that man will inflict on one another, but God is judging according to His standards and as such we who are guilty of failing to meet those standards cannot stand and criticize God for destroying reprobates and a reprobate society.
I do not think I am out of step with what the Bible teaches and how God wants us to live. God knows the vast majority who make up the "world", which is the enemy of God and the world will perish, and it will be the relatively few by comparison (though this will be a large number), who will be saved and will enjoy God's eternal kingdom on this earth that will come in the future.

The idea that "anything offered to God has to be perfect" makes no sense to me. God did not create a perfect world. He did not create us perfect. Why then should we be held to a higher standard than God? Look at the things God has created - deformed babies, minds that are easily corrupted, viruses. Where's the perfection in any of that?

Your assertion that the horrors have come about by man's actions is false. First, if it was God who created man, he could have created us better. Second, and more importantly, God freely chose the path of horror, blood, and violence when dealing with humans. It was his free choice, and he did it over and over and over again. It saturates the Bible from the flood in Genesis to the Lake of Fire in Revelation. Why is God so enamored with violence, violence, and more violence?

Originally Posted by David M

I am using the word "man" in a generalized sense. It would have been better to use the word "world", which I have done in my replies above. The vast majority of people who are in the "world" do not love God as can be seen by their actions. Lip service does not count. This is what God said of His own chosen people and is typical of the world in which God appears to be worshiped. (Isaiah 29:13) Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

If you comments apply to anyone they apply to everyone, including everyone who claims the name of Christ. There is no evidence that Christians are any better than anyone else.

Originally Posted by David M

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

The truth is simple to see. Folks cannot believe in the biblegod because he is not the true God. The Bible attributes many moral abominations to him. And this proves that we have a moral standard that does not depend on God or that the Bible is not the Word of God, because otherwise we would have no problem with the moral abominations it attributes to him.

"The truth is simple to see", I agree, but your statement that follows is false. I am a "folk" that can believe the biblegod as you refer to the God I believe. You have formed your own opinion and it is your opinion that the Bible is not the inspired word of God and that the writers of the Bible have created a biblegod. I have no problems you say are moral abominations. I can see that they are moral abominations who do not recognize that judgment and justice has been exercised.

The fact that you have "no problems" with the genocide and mass rape of 32,000 virgins indicates that the words of the Bible mean nothing to you because you change their meaning to suit your own opinions. Why then have a Bible at all? It teaches you nothing. You force it to conform to your own sense of morality. When it contradicts your morality, you force it to fit by twisting the words. (No offense intended - I'm just being descriptive here.)

Originally Posted by David M

I thought with all your Bible study you would know how the salvation through Jesus the Christ works. Because of all the problems you cite, this is why God can be the only judge capable of deciding who will be selected in the day of judgment. It is not for me to worry about what other people believe, it is important to worry about what I believe and which I discuss here, and whether my heart is right before God. I might be seen as a heretic to say that Jesus is not God, and I will let God judge my sincerity in how I have come to that conclusion.

I certainly know how Christians say it works, but "all my Bible study" has helped me see that there are big problems with their doctrines and with what the Bible says.

Your faith is really just faith in your own ideas. You say you will "wait for God to judge" - so what's the point of all this religion? It makes no difference. Neither you nor anyone has any way to know if you are right. So everyone just does their best with or without the Bible and we'll see what happens in the end.

Originally Posted by David M

You quoted in your reply Micah 6:8 He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? and as you say, we naturally understand what "to love" and "to do justly" means, but how many will actually walk (spiritually) humbly with God? You are not doing this as far as I can tell.

Well, of course no one can know what it means to "walk humbly with God" because no one actually knows anything about God at all. The only thing you've got to go on are your ideas that you learned from a book and traditions relating to it. You have no direct access to God at all. That's why no Christian really knows what is true or false but must wait till "Judgment Day" to find out if their beliefs had any validity at all. And what will we see on that day? Catholics and JWs and Christadelphians and everyone else with utterly contradictory beliefs watching to find out which was right? And we're supposed to worry about it now? Why? What's the point?

Great chatting,

Richard

Richard Amiel McGough - 10-30-2012, 09:56 AM
- Reply
Originally Posted by CWH

"Jargon" is not a bad name, what I am saying is that there is no need to go through complex formulas and theories to come to a simple understanding of Morality.

Unfortunately, there is a great need to clarify the foundations of morality because many people are totally confused on this topic. For example, many if not most Christians say that nothing would be right or wrong if there were no God. And they argue that the existence of morality supposedly PROVES there is a god!

And worse, many secular folks (atheists and skeptics and intellectuals) agree and so say that nothing is really right or wrong. So obviously, we need a lucid explanation of the meaning of morality. That is the purpose of my theory of morality - to explain what should be obvious to everyone.

Originally Posted by CWH

I don't see God the way you see as an invention of primitive men. Funny, the God that created the earth and the heavens is plural. Therefore, whatever God that we named on earth ultimately is refering to the Creator God(plural). I see God as a Super intelligent force that is so intelligent that He could create plants, animals, planets, sun(fusion energy), matter etc. at will. If you can do that that then you can declare yourself as God. Will humans one day in the distant future be like God(plural) capable of creating, plants, animals, olanets, suns, matter etc. at will? I have no doubt about that. Only when humans have reached that stage of advanced technology, we can then become part of that Super intelligent force. But whether we humans can do it alone without external help from that Super intelligent force, I remains doubtful.

There is no need for any god to explain how the world works. We do that with something called "science." When the primitive men invented god, they used him to explain all the things they couldn't understand, like why there were storms and earthquakes and diseases. They didn't understand anything. They were ignorant. It's very sad to see folks living in the 21st century trying to force their conception of the world to fit ancient superstitions.

Originally Posted by CWH

Your theory is no more superior than mine; it has no meaning but a self declared prophesy, what is "Self loves Self is one"? and what is "Self view Other as Self in love"?.... Sounds illogical.

If logic sounds illogical to you, there's not much I can do to help. I presented a LOGICAL argument, and you don't have sufficient understanding to even criticize it. All you can say is "sounds illogical." Case in point: You don't understand that a self must love itself? This indicates you don't even understand the Bible:

"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." - If you don't love yourself, how can you fulfill that command?
Ephesians 5:29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
The Bible plainly teaches self-love as the foundation of loving others. But this is all "illogical" to you.

Originally Posted by CWH

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

Thus we have actual UNDERSTANDING of morality that your theory does not give. Your theory is based on an empty phrase "Love God" which has no real meaning because no one knows anything about any God except what other people have told them in a book or whatever. Now if by "God" you mean "everything and everyone" including your own self, then your theory reduces to the same as mine.

"God" sounds illiogical to you because you believe it is an invention from the minds of primitive men based on your atheist dogma whereas I see it as a super intelligent force which we will one day be part of that family.

I have no "atheist dogma." Or what? Is my rejection of Zeus a "dogma"? Don't be ridiculous.

Is your belief in God any different than a child's belief in Santa Claus? If so, how?

Originally Posted by CWH

If you can prove morality scientifically, then show me the formula. If Oxytocin and other chemicals produce love then get everybody injected with oxytocin and the "love chemicals" and there will not be any hatred, cruelty or war in this world!....Brillliant!

I have shown you the formula, but you said it seemed "illogical" even though you could show no error in any of my logic. Your comments are filled with nothingness.

And as it turns out, injecting people with oxytocin does help them relate better with others. But it's not the solution as is obvious to anyone with the slightest degree of understanding.

Originally Posted by CWH

What have hippieism achieved? World peace and love? or is it Free Love and Drugs and Punk music?
Hippieism is dead and outdated; hardly anyone believe in hippieism nowadays. "All you need is Love" is a known hippie anthem/song.

So you reject the fact that "All you need is love?" Great. Once again you reveal your ignorance of the Bible which says that "God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him" (1 John 4:16). This exemplifies how religion corrupts the mind and morals of believers. You reject the truth if it is stated in a way that you don't recognize as fitting with your religion. Thus we see that it is your religious dogmas that you hold supreme and that you have a disdain for the truth and the God you say you love.

David M - 11-01-2012, 12:24 AM
- Reply
Hello Richard

Thank you for going back and answering the four questions. I will deal with this part of your reply first.

If this was an exam paper and I had to mark it, I would give you around 3 or 4 out of 10. I would give you one mark for putting your name on the paper and one mark for making an attempt at the questions and possibly one or two marks for the content. I will annotate your answers with my comments (in red).

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

Good morning David,

I will begin by answering your four questions:

Given that man is capable of coming up with a definition for love and for morality which does not involve God, how do you get everyone to accept the definition and abide by it?
I answered this question - the meaning of "love" is known to all people in all cultures because it is a fundamental characteristic of what it means to be human. We don't need to focus on the definition. It's a good starting point.
You have not answered the part of the question which asked; how do you get people to abide by the definition?

What then is the moral solution for anyone who does not meet the definition that man has made?
All words are "man's definition." There are no other kinds of words. "Man" did not "make" the definition of "love" any differently than any other word in human language. It is confusion to talk about "man's definitions" as if there were any other kind of definition of any word.
You have concentrated on the word "definition" and not answered the question as to what is to be done..?

How are you going to change a sick society?
Through knowledge, education, and clarification of our understanding of reality. The primary problems are based on a failure to act on love, justice, fairness, truth.
How is this going to be done in practice? We are being educated now. God's word is educating us and directing our steps, but who is taking heed to God's word? The world, which is 99 +% of the earth's population is the enemy of God. How are you going to educate "the world" which is not listening?

As it is now, can it ever be changed unless it starts with the government of that society?
Why would anyone think that government is a solution? My moral theory is just that - a theory to understand our moral intuitions. Questions about how to implement our understanding is a matter of pragmatics.
OK so you do not have a practical solution and you do not see that a government is necessary in order to ensure the implementation of your theory. Unless, people follow your theory and put it into practice, the world is not going to change. Your theory is no less than what the Bible teaches and God in His wisdom is directing our steps provided we listen to Him. God's solution is to send Jesus back to this earth and Jesus will govern with power to bring about the reforms necessary. Besides the power that Jesus will have, which no political leader has had anywhere near the power that Jesus will have, Jesus will rule in righteousness. No present-day government or politician has righteousness. The best intentions of all political leaders have all come to naught once they attained office.

All the best,

David

Richard Amiel McGough - 11-01-2012, 08:54 AM
- Reply
Originally Posted by David M

Hello Richard

Thank you for going back and answering the four questions. I will deal with this part of your reply first.

If this was an exam paper and I had to mark it, I would give you around 3 or 4 out of 10. I would give you one mark for putting your name on the paper and one mark for making an attempt at the questions and possibly one or two marks for the content. I will annotate your answers with my comments (in red).

Good morning David,

Your comments indicate that you missed the fundamental point of my article. It is a theory of morality that explains the root and reason we believe that our moral intuitions are real and objective. I designed it to explain why we have the moral intuitions we do. I wrote it in response to two common errors: 1) The Christian assertion that objective morality would be impossible without God, and 2) The Atheist assertion that there is no objective morality at all because we are just evolved animals and all values are subjective. Your questions concern the practical question about how to run a society which is an entirely different topic that involves subjects such a sociology, psychology, and criminology.

Originally Posted by David M

Given that man is capable of coming up with a definition for love and for morality which does not involve God, how do you get everyone to accept the definition and abide by it?
I answered this question - the meaning of "love" is known to all people in all cultures because it is a fundamental characteristic of what it means to be human. We don't need to focus on the definition. It's a good starting point.
You have not answered the part of the question which asked; how do you get people to abide by the definition?

The purpose of a moral theory is to explain morality. It's purpose is not to coerce people to abide by a definition. It is like the theory of Quantum Mechanics - it explains how atoms work. It does not tell you how to convince people to believe in atoms.

Originally Posted by David M

What then is the moral solution for anyone who does not meet the definition that man has made?
All words are "man's definition." There are no other kinds of words. "Man" did not "make" the definition of "love" any differently than any other word in human language. It is confusion to talk about "man's definitions" as if there were any other kind of definition of any word.
You have concentrated on the word "definition" and not answered the question as to what is to be done..?

Again, your question indicates that you missed the point of my article. I did not write a word about what practical steps should be taken to run a society. My theory was designed to answer a question: Are our moral intuitions objective and grounded in reality or are they just subjective personal opinions?

Originally Posted by David M

How are you going to change a sick society?
Through knowledge, education, and clarification of our understanding of reality. The primary problems are based on a failure to act on love, justice, fairness, truth.
How is this going to be done in practice? We are being educated now. God's word is educating us and directing our steps, but who is taking heed to God's word? The world, which is 99 +% of the earth's population is the enemy of God. How are you going to educate "the world" which is not listening?

Religion is the great deceiver as you well know. The concept that "God's Word" teaches anyone anything objectively true is demonstrably false because folks just as devout as you come to diametrically opposed conclusions. The Bible is logically incoherent and so leads to mass confusion. And worse, it teaches a grossly false morality based on OBEDIENCE to COMMANDMENTS even when they directly contradict our moral intuitions. You of all people know this since your beliefs about the Bible are radically different than those held by 99+% of all Christians who have ever lived.

The solution really is knowledge, education, and clarification of our understanding of reality just as I said. This has been working well. More and more people are freed from the shackles of false religion every day. I'm not talking only about the ten thousand contradictory forms of Christianity, but all the forms of other religions too. As people wake up to reality and reject religious delusions, they begin to obey their innate intellectual and moral sense and the world becomes a better place. I know this is true because I've seen it happen in my own life and the lives of others. Religion offers nothing but bondage, blindness, death, and destruction. Think about this - what underlies the horror of history if not ignorance and ideological mind-control by dictators? Think of the Islamic invasions and forced conversions, the Christian inquisition and forced obedience, the crazed suicides of Jim Jones and Heaven's Gate cults. On and on it goes. It is time to wake up and be free!

Originally Posted by David M

As it is now, can it ever be changed unless it starts with the government of that society?
Why would anyone think that government is a solution? My moral theory is just that - a theory to understand our moral intuitions. Questions about how to implement our understanding is a matter of pragmatics.
OK so you do not have a practical solution and you do not see that a government is necessary in order to ensure the implementation of your theory. Unless, people follow your theory and put it into practice, the world is not going to change. Your theory is no less than what the Bible teaches and God in His wisdom is directing our steps provided we listen to Him. God's solution is to send Jesus back to this earth and Jesus will govern with power to bring about the reforms necessary. Besides the power that Jesus will have, which no political leader has had anywhere near the power that Jesus will have, Jesus will rule in righteousness. No present-day government or politician has righteousness. The best intentions of all political leaders have all come to naught once they attained office.

Again, your comments are based on a failure to understand the nature and purpose of a moral theory. It is not a theory about how to run a society. That would involve topics like sociology, psychology, and criminology. They are all related of course, but it is important to keep them separate or we could never make any progress at all.

All the best,

Richard

David M - 11-02-2012, 03:18 AM
- Reply
Hello Richard

I have read through the whole of your blog article and as you know I agree that this can be a good theory of morality. I agree with the principle of loving others as one wants to be loved by someone else. However, is love innate within us, or does love have to be learned? Does a baby learn love from its mother and father and what happens when a baby does not receive love? What happens to cause a person not to love their neighbor and the theory does not apply? These are my questions and my concern.

If love is learned, then morals are learned. It might be a theory, but should this theory be a rule that humans are made to live by? What happens when humans do not live by this rule or do not have the innate love within them for the theory to be seen to work? Alas, the theory is not applying to the vast majority that I shall call "the world". As a theory it is a good theory and one day, it is in God's plan that this theory will be the order of the day and the theory will become practice. I do not think the theory is being practiced by humans in the world today. It is a theory that in practice all humans could live by, but there is no will by the world to do so. It is a theory that those of us who agree with can aspire to put into practice in our lives and thus set an example, but will our example have any influence on the world? The only influence will come from God when he pours out his judgment on the evil people of the world. God has warned us of these terrible times we are witnessing and that is why I know that God will put things right and restore the world and your theory will apply to everyone in God's Kingdom. Until then, the theory will fall on deaf ears and does not apply to those in which the theory does not work.

OK, we can begin another thread to discuss the questions above or else wait for threads to begin in which this topic of morality will come up again and questions will come.

All the best

David

Richard Amiel McGough - 11-02-2012, 10:54 AM
- Reply
Originally Posted by David M

Hello Richard

I have read through the whole of your blog article and as you know I agree that this can be a good theory of morality. I agree with the principle of loving others as one wants to be loved by someone else. However, is love innate within us, or does love have to be learned? Does a baby learn love from its mother and father and what happens when a baby does not receive love? What happens to cause a person not to love their neighbor and the theory does not apply? These are my questions and my concern.

If love is learned, then morals are learned. It might be a theory, but should this theory be a rule that humans are made to live by? What happens when humans do not live by this rule or do not have the innate love within them for the theory to be seen to work? Alas, the theory is not applying to the vast majority that I shall call "the world". As a theory it is a good theory and one day, it is in God's plan that this theory will be the order of the day and the theory will become practice. I do not think the theory is being practiced by humans in the world today. It is a theory that in practice all humans could live by, but there is no will by the world to do so. It is a theory that those of us who agree with can aspire to put into practice in our lives and thus set an example, but will our example have any influence on the world? The only influence will come from God when he pours out his judgment on the evil people of the world. God has warned us of these terrible times we are witnessing and that is why I know that God will put things right and restore the world and your theory will apply to everyone in God's Kingdom. Until then, the theory will fall on deaf ears and does not apply to those in which the theory does not work.

OK, we can begin another thread to discuss the questions above or else wait for threads to begin in which this topic of morality will come up again and questions will come.

All the best

David

Good morning David,

I'm glad we agree that my theory of morality may have some merit. It is true that love is learned just like most other characteristics that make us human such as language. But neither love nor language could be learned if we did not have an innate capacity for such things.

What happens if a baby does not receive love from parents? The typical case is that the child is greatly handicapped emotional and socially, just like a feral child that never learned language or other things that make us fully human.

My moral theory is designed to explain the root and reason for our moral intuitions. The fact that folks bereft of human nurture do not develop normally says does not contradict my theory of morality.

You say "If love is learned, then morals are learned." Yes, just like language is learned. The specific language will depend upon culturally relative things, but the language itself is still an objective fact and it can refer to objective reality despite its relative origin.

You ask "should this theory be a rule that humans are made to live by?" The answer is a resounding YES. According to my theory, it already is the "rule" that humans live by.

You ask "What happens when humans do not live by this rule or do not have the innate love within them for the theory to be seen to work?" When humans do not live by this rule, they are cut off from their moral intuitions. They make up theories of morality that have nothing to do with real morality, such as the Divine Command theory. The theory explains exactly what happens when folks "do not have the innate love within them" - such people are "morally handicapped" and do not have a proper sense of morality.

You say "Alas, the theory is not applying to the vast majority that I shall call 'the world'." That's not true. The vast majority of people have a sense of morality, and according to my theory, the explanation is that they have self love and reflective love. They understand why things are right or wrong because of how an action affects others by putting themselves in the place of others. This is the Golden Rule. The fact that many people fail is no different than the fact that many people make mistakes in language.

You say "The only influence will come from God when he pours out his judgment on the evil people of the world." That won't help anyone reform. Even the Bible says that those under such judgment only sin all the more. That's why it is foolish for God to "pour out his judgment" - it's never done any good at all. Look at what happened immediately after the flood that was supposed to wipe out all the wicked people. The first thing Noah did was get drunk and curse his own descendents! And then folks built the tower of Babel which God destroyed along with their ability to communicate! Such is not the path that would lead to morality. This is why the God of the Bible cannot be true in my estimation. He acts just like a primitive, irrational, brutal man and does things that are not good and that do not lead to good.

You say "God has warned us of these terrible times we are witnessing." That seems ridiculous to me. Every generation of Christians has said that for 2000 years. They can't all be right. This shows how they take stuff from the Bible like a Rorschach ink blot and read into it events of their own time. They've always been wrong. Why should we think it is any different now?

You say "Until then, the theory will fall on deaf ears and does not apply to those in which the theory does not work." Again, that is a complete misunderstanding of my theory which is intended as an explanation of the root and reason of our moral intuitions. It also explains why folks are immoral, so your examples of immorality only confirm my theory. The fact that people are immoral does not contradict my theory in any way at all.

All the best,

Richard

jce - 11-03-2012, 02:17 AM
- Reply
Hello Richard

Nice theory... lots of words.

I have no problem with accepting the likelihood that man was endowed with a conscience by his Creator. It is self evident and the Bible states that every person is equipped with a conscience that instinctively knows right and wrong. Paul confirmed this when he stated, "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them". With that said, there is a spiritual and moral side to every person. A faculty that is distinct from the physical.

Now there are some that would deny that humanity is inherently sinful by implying that any manifestation of evil behavior is simply a degree of psychological insanity, mostly curable with medication and therapy. Such corrupted thinking is at odds with human history. Evil actions of human beings transcend mental disorders. Many psychologically sane humans have made their own significant contributions to the world's history of evil acts. As Ravi Zacharias once pointed out, "Many of the worst crimes in history were committed, not by the poor and uneducated, but rather by those with a full stomach and high degree of education". This establishes the fact that sin is the common denominator in the problem of evil behavior. The psychologically sane can be just as dangerous, if not more so, than the psychologically insane, and further to the point, that education has not been the difference.

I doubt that you will find any solution to mankind's sinful problem in the realm of science which is ill equipped to deal with anything supernatural. Science, though highly esteemed as the new supremacy, is as feeble and fallible as the men who invented it, and therefore, subject to corrupted results. How could it not be so? Man's science is merely child's play in the Creative environment of the Biblical God.

Your friend,

John

David M - 11-03-2012, 02:49 AM
- Reply
(Richard Amiel McGough)
refer to objective reality despite its relative origin.

You ask "should this theory be a rule that humans are made to live by?" The answer is a resounding YES. According to my theory, it already is the "rule" that humans live by.

Hello Richard
It is good we are agreeing on the basis of morality. I also see that you are now agreeing that we should live by this rule of morality; I am pleased you now agree on this and you are not objecting to humans living by rules whether man-made or made by God for the benefit of mankind. On this point I would like to remind you of something you said;

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

Morality is grounded in human empathy. If we didn't love or care about others, we would have no sense of morality. It's that simple.

Morality is not based on any rules. It is based on love. That's it.

(Richard Amiel McGough) You ask "What happens when humans do not live by this rule or do not have the innate love within them for the theory to be seen to work?" When humans do not live by this rule, they are cut off from their moral intuitions. They make up theories of morality that have nothing to do with real morality, such as the Divine Command theory. The theory explains exactly what happens when folks "do not have the innate love within them" - such people are "morally handicapped" and do not have a proper sense of morality.

I will not labor the point, but this is what needs to be dealt with and can be done so in another thread. People who are morally handicapped need to be dealt with, or else society can degenerate to the point that few people are high on the scale of morality; maybe you would like to think of a scale in which morality can be measured.

(Richard Amiel McGough) You say "Alas, the theory is not applying to the vast majority that I shall call 'the world'." That's not true. The vast majority of people have a sense of morality, and according to my theory, the explanation is that they have self love and reflective love. They understand why things are right or wrong because of how an action affects others by putting themselves in the place of others. This is the Golden Rule. The fact that many people fail is no different than the fact that many people make mistakes in language.

Everyone can know the theory and it does not depend on language, but not everyone applies the theory all of the time in their lives. This theory of morality that you have produced I regard now as a principle everyone ought to live by. If it is a rule, the rule should be kept in order to have a moral society. All I am saying is that "the World" by enlarge does not keep to the rule and if we could produce a scale it would be like a pyramid whereby the vast majority of people would be low down. At the pinnacle of the pyramid I place Jesus.

There are many "good" people who can be "bad" at times, it is the consistent application of the rule at all times in ones life that is difficult and I would not claim to be perfect and herein is the difficulty of deciding what is acceptable. This is why I must leave all judgment to God who does know the motives (hearts) of all men.

(Richard Amiel McGough) You say "The only influence will come from God when he pours out his judgment on the evil people of the world." That won't help anyone reform. Even the Bible says that those under such judgment only sin all the more. That's why it is foolish for God to "pour out his judgment" - it's never done any good at all. Look at what happened immediately after the flood that was supposed to wipe out all the wicked people. The first thing Noah did was get drunk and curse his own descendents! And then folks built the tower of Babel which God destroyed along with their ability to communicate! Such is not the path that would lead to morality. This is why the God of the Bible cannot be true in my estimation. He acts just like a primitive, irrational, brutal man and does things that are not good and that do not lead to good.

I agree that God's judgment of the evil people who God will not save, does not help them. God will save all those who are judged acceptable as having based their lives on trying to be like God's only begotten Son who not only lived by the moral rule that your theory explains, but also lived by the moral rule that God gave which Jesus said was the first and great commandment. Your theory of morality according to Jesus is the second rule. Now society does not have to abide by the first commandment to love God ... but it needs to live by the second rule. Maybe at this stage we can think about coming up with a theory to explain the first rule and what the benefits for mankind is for obeying the first rule.

(Richard Amiel McGough) You say "God has warned us of these terrible times we are witnessing." That seems ridiculous to me. Every generation of Christians has said that for 2000 years. They can't all be right. This shows how they take stuff from the Bible like a Rorschach ink blot and read into it events of their own time. They've always been wrong. Why should we think it is any different now?

In this you are correct and there will come a time when what you say will be wrong, just as there will be alive a generation that will witness the return of Jesus; until then there will be scoffers as we have been warned; (2Peter 3:4) And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

(Richard Amiel McGough) You say "Until then, the theory will fall on deaf ears and does not apply to those in which the theory does not work." Again, that is a complete misunderstanding of my theory which is intended as an explanation of the root and reason of our moral intuitions. It also explains why folks are immoral, so your examples of immorality only confirm my theory. The fact that people are immoral does not contradict my theory in any way at all.

I am not trying to contradict your theory; only to consider the fact that the theory is now a rule (as we agree) and that people do not always live by the rule. The degree to which they do not live by the rule is a measure of the extent of their immorality.

All the best,

David

Richard Amiel McGough - 11-03-2012, 10:52 AM
- Reply
Originally Posted by jce

Hello Richard

Nice theory... lots of words.

I have no problem with accepting the likelihood that man was endowed with a conscience by his Creator. It is self evident and the Bible states that every person is equipped with a conscience that instinctively knows right and wrong. Paul confirmed this when he stated, "For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them". With that said, there is a spiritual and moral side to every person. A faculty that is distinct from the physical.

Good morning John,

Glad you stopped by for a visit. Your suggestion that "man was endowed with a conscience by his Creator" seems like a superfluous assumption to me. The whole point of a scientific theory is to explain phenomena in terms of things we understand. When Isaac Newton developed his theory of gravity, he could have said "God moves objects according to my equation" but that would not add any information or help us understand the phenomenon of gravity. The theory of gravity remains invariant with or without any assumption about God. The same thing goes for my theory of morality. It is based on the nature of what we are (which is well-explained by evolution) and how are actions affect those we love (including our own selves as well as others).

The verse you quoted always mystified me when I was a Christian for two reasons: 1) It seems entirely contrary to the rest of Paul's message. 2) What exactly is the "law" that Gentiles obeyed instinctively? It seems contrary to the Gospel because it speaks of natural morality (instinctive) that can successfully be obeyed by Gentiles. This apparent contradiction gets amplified when Paul said that eternal live could be gained through good works:
Romans 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; 10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: 11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
The word translated as "well doing" is ergou agathou which elsewhere is translated as "good works" (e.g. Titus 1:16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.). No matter how we explain this passage, it certainly seems to contradict the other doctrines about righteousness through faith alone. Paul said nothing about the Gentiles believing anything. On the contrary, he focused entirely on the idea of being righteous in fact through good works.

So what is the "law" that the Gentiles instinctively obey? The only possible answer that I can see, given their ignorance of Scripture, is the Golden Rule as expressed by Jesus:
Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Paul concurred:
Romans 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
This is the "high teaching" of the Bible. Paul and Jesus isolated and articulated the natural foundation of morality. There is no need for God or commandments to understand morality. God did not insert a "conscience" into us as if it were something extra added to our humanity. Morality is based on what we are: self-conscious rational beings must, but their very nature, have a conscience. Now it is true that a conscience can be seared just as it is true that a person can lack self-love because of some psychological trauma. Remember, selfishness is actually the opposite of self-love.

The Bible teaches this theory quite clearly. The law made of rules and regulations cannot "lead to life" - it cannot teach us true morality, but rather only show us when we may have strayed from what our self-awareness (which you call conscience) speaks to us. Paul expressed this by saying that the law was a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ which seems to me to be a symbol of an individuated person - someone who has come into the full integrity of self which implies self-love and love for others.

Originally Posted by jce

Now there are some that would deny that humanity is inherently sinful by implying that any manifestation of evil behavior is simply a degree of psychological insanity, mostly curable with medication and therapy. Such corrupted thinking is at odds with human history. Evil actions of human beings transcend mental disorders. Many psychologically sane humans have made their own significant contributions to the world's history of evil acts. As Ravi Zacharias once pointed out, "Many of the worst crimes in history were committed, not by the poor and uneducated, but rather by those with a full stomach and high degree of education". This establishes the fact that sin is the common denominator in the problem of evil behavior. The psychologically sane can be just as dangerous, if not more so, than the psychologically insane, and further to the point, that education has not been the difference.

I doubt that you will find any solution to mankind's sinful problem in the realm of science which is ill equipped to deal with anything supernatural. Science, though highly esteemed as the new supremacy, is as feeble and fallible as the men who invented it, and therefore, subject to corrupted results. How could it not be so? Man's science is merely child's play in the Creative environment of the Biblical God.

Your friend,

John

I never use the word "sin" in my conceptualization of any aspect of morality. The word represents a false understanding of morality because it is entirely wrapped up with the law - the idea that morality can be expressed in a set of rules (a list of do's and don'ts). That is a false view of morality that Jesus and Paul so wonderfully transcended when they taught that "all you need is love."

Personally, I think that the concept that "humanity is inherently sinful" is one of the worst doctrines of the Bible. It leads to endless evil because folks are taught not to trust their own hearts (the root of all morality) but to only OBEY OBEY OBEY which is exactly what they did under Hitler. This is a new insight Rose and I discovered when reading Erich Fromm's The Art of Loving when researching this article. He discussed two kinds of love - Motherly Love which is totally and unconditionally accepting, and Fatherly Love which is totally conditional and based on obedience. This insight was like a bolt of lightning that split open the Bible to reveal the fundamental root of it's moral teaching - OBEDIENCE. This coheres quite naturally, of course, with the Biblical image of God as Father. This gives great insight. Is there any moral lesson in the Garden story? Yes - OBEDIENCE. It teaches us nothing about morality other than "OBEY." This is the Biblical teaching from beginning to end (Rev 22:14 "Blessed are they that do his commandments"). And it is the root of all the evil in the world cause by blind obedience to dictators like Hitler, cult leaders like Jim Jones, and charlatan hucksters like Benny Hinn. It seems to pretty much explain everything that is wrong with religion.

It is ironic that you say rejection of the inherent sinfulness of humanity is "at odds with human history" since history gets better the more we reject that very concept! What is it about history that made it such a nightmare? BLIND OBEDIENCE to religious and political leaders that went contrary to our innate moral intuitions! Think of how different history would have been if the people obeyed their moral intuitions and rejected the Pope's crusades and Hitler's genocide of the Jews.

Again, I'm really glad you stopped by to share your views. Your comments are helping me to clarify and test my theory.

All the best,

Richard

jce - 11-04-2012, 05:49 AM
- Reply
Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

Good morning John,

Glad you stopped by for a visit. Your suggestion that "man was endowed with a conscience by his Creator" seems like a superfluous assumption to me.

Thank-you for the warm welcome Richard!

It is only an assumption to the unbeliever. To me, it is not only self evident, but reinforced by Scripture. When God issued the command to the first man, and that man disobeyed, the man responded by attempting to conceal his nakedness, literally and symbolically, thereby demonstrating that man possessed a moral attribute. One that reminded him of his responsibility toward God as the Master.

When Isaac Newton developed his theory of gravity, he could have said "God moves objects according to my equation" but that would not add any information or help us understand the phenomenon of gravity. The theory of gravity remains invariant with or without any assumption about God. The same thing goes for my theory of morality.

Please don't misunderstand me, but here's the problem with science... it is limited to the natural world and has no method to test or prove an event occurring beyond nature. I enjoy science. It is a gift to be able to answer many of our curiosities about nature, and very rewarding to those who have invested their lives to research solutions for the betterment of mankind. Science and the Bible are not opposed to each other. There are simply some Biblical events which raise questions that man's science can not explain. For example...

In the beginning, when God raised dry land from the sea, how did He do that?

When He later reversed the process and flooded the earth to destroy man, how did He do that?

How did Jesus turn water to wine without additives?

How was Jesus conceived within the womb of a young virgin girl?

How did Jesus revive from death and exit the tomb?

To answer these questions, one should first ask three more...

Is there a God?

Is He more powerful than creation?

Do the elements of creation respond to His command and obey Him, even when contrary to natural law?

If you answer yes to the last three, then you will accept the limits of man's science and its inability to provide solutions to the first set of questions. If you answer in the negative, well then, man's science is all you have, and though it is a powerful tool, it is merely inadequate to define God's supernatural abilities.

It is based on the nature of what we are (which is well-explained by evolution) and how are actions affect those we love (including our own selves as well as others)

If evolution is true and if the creation account in Genesis is literally true, then we have a violation of the law of non-contradiction. But then again, we are relying upon a natural law aren't we.

Always enjoy the debate, but that's enough for now.

Your friend,

John

Richard Amiel McGough - 11-05-2012, 10:30 AM
- Reply
Originally Posted by jce

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

Good morning John,

Glad you stopped by for a visit. Your suggestion that "man was endowed with a conscience by his Creator" seems like a superfluous assumption to me.

Thank-you for the warm welcome Richard!

It is only an assumption to the unbeliever. To me, it is not only self evident, but reinforced by Scripture. When God issued the command to the first man, and that man disobeyed, the man responded by attempting to conceal his nakedness, literally and symbolically, thereby demonstrating that man possessed a moral attribute. One that reminded him of his responsibility toward God as the Master.

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

When Isaac Newton developed his theory of gravity, he could have said "God moves objects according to my equation" but that would not add any information or help us understand the phenomenon of gravity. The theory of gravity remains invariant with or without any assumption about God. The same thing goes for my theory of morality.

Please don't misunderstand me, but here's the problem with science... it is limited to the natural world and has no method to test or prove an event occurring beyond nature. I enjoy science. It is a gift to be able to answer many of our curiosities about nature, and very rewarding to those who have invested their lives to research solutions for the betterment of mankind.

Good morning John,

Thanks for sharing your view. Your assertion that "it is only an assumption to an unbeliever" seems to indicate you have missed the point. The "god hypothesis" is literally superfluous because it does not add anything to any scientific theory. The same equations hold whether or not you believe in God. Sure, they are consistent with your belief in God, but such a belief adds nothing to them. Isaac Newton was a firm Christian believer, yet he understood that unprovable hypotheses had no place in science. Here is how he explained this in his Principia Mathematica:
Hitherto I have not been able to discover the cause of those properties of gravity from the phenomena, and I frame no hypothesis; for whatever is not deduced from the phenomena is to be called an hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, whether of occult qualities or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterward rendered general by deduction. Thus it was the impenetrability, the mobility, and the impulsive forces of bodies, and the laws of motion and of gravitation were discovered. And to us it is enough that gravity does really exist, and acts according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies, and of our sea.
Here Newton was responding to the mystery of how gravity acts "at a distance" without any physical contact between the two bodies. Science had yet to develop the theory of a "field of force" so gravity seemed like an "occult" phenomenon. Newton did take this as evidence of God, but it still played no role in his theory.

I think your idea that Adam's fear of God's reprisal indicates "that man possessed a moral attribute" reveals an erroneous conception of morality. Adam feared God not because he knew there was something morally wrong with disobedience, but because he knew that God had the power to punish him. This seems pretty obvious because there was nothing immoral about eating from a tree. The only "sin" was disobedience to an arbitrary command. And besides, it would have been impossible for Adam to understand he was acting immorally if he had no knowledge of good and evil.

The real issue is this: authentic morality is based on the nature of the act and how it affects others. Thus, it is grounded in what it is, not in obedience to arbitrary commands that no one can know anyway since we have no direct access to God. This is why I think the Bible is so destructive to good morals. It teaches OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY as the highest value. And what is the fruit of that teaching? Hitler's killers said they were "only obeying orders" when they murdered six thousand Jews. In many cases, disobedience would be the only moral choice, as for example, when God commanded all the men, women, and children of the Midianites be killed, except for 32,000 virgins that were then distributed to the soldiers.

Originally Posted by jce

Science and the Bible are not opposed to each other. There are simply some Biblical events which raise questions that man's science can not explain. For example...

In the beginning, when God raised dry land from the sea, how did He do that?

When He later reversed the process and flooded the earth to destroy man, how did He do that?

How did Jesus turn water to wine without additives?

How was Jesus conceived within the womb of a young virgin girl?

How did Jesus revive from death and exit the tomb?

To answer these questions, one should first ask three more...

Is there a God?

Is He more powerful than creation?

Do the elements of creation respond to His command and obey Him, even when contrary to natural law?

If you answer yes to the last three, then you will accept the limits of man's science and its inability to provide solutions to the first set of questions. If you answer in the negative, well then, man's science is all you have, and though it is a powerful tool, it is merely inadequate to define God's supernatural abilities.

There is no problem with your belief that 1) there is a God, 2) he is more powerful than his creation, 3) That he can do miracles. But how are those questions relevant to the discussion at hand? Science remains valid, and God does not, as a general rule, do any of the things you asked about. This is why science is successful and why the God hypothesis is superfluous. There are no measurable phenomena that require God as an explanation.

Originally Posted by jce

Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

It is based on the nature of what we are (which is well-explained by evolution) and how are actions affect those we love (including our own selves as well as others)

If evolution is true and if the creation account in Genesis is literally true, then we have a violation of the law of non-contradiction. But then again, we are relying upon a natural law aren't we.

Always enjoy the debate, but that's enough for now.

Your friend,

John

The problems with a "literal interpretation" of Genesis is not that they contradict only evolution, but rather that they contradict the entire edifice of science. The Bible is literally false from the first verse if you take it "literally" since the "heavens" (universe) began 13.75 billion years ago, whereas the "earth" was formed only 4.5 billion years ago. So they were not created together "in the beginning." And worse, evolution is an established fact no less certain than gravity, so you have set the Bible against Reality itself, not merely "science." It's fine if you want to say that God created all the animals in a way that happens to look like evolution, but you can't deny that evolution is a fact without denying the mutually confirming independent evidence of the entire fossil record (written in stone), the DNA evidence (which we use to establish paternity in court), and the morphology that all conspire to support the phylogenetic tree of life. The undeniable fact is that older fossils show that organisms changed over time and that's the definition of evolution. Theories about what caused those changes are "theories of evolution" that are meant to explain the "fact of evolution." It's OK if you want to propose the theory that "God did it" but I trust you understand why that's not a very enlightening theory.

I'm really glad you are taking time to discuss this with me. I hope the conversation continues.

All the best to you, my good friend,

Richard

jce - 11-05-2012, 03:15 PM
- Reply
Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough

Good morning John,

Thanks for sharing your view. Your assertion that "it is only an assumption to an unbeliever" seems to indicate you have missed the point. The "god hypothesis" is literally superfluous because it does not add anything to any scientific theory. The same equations hold whether or not you believe in God.

I didn't miss the point. We are talking about a scientific theory and one of the laws of science is cause and effect. If the theory proposes that the effect is "morality", then there must be a cause. Since evolution cannot account for the cause, then there must be a meta-physical cause. Yes? No?

I think your idea that Adam's fear of God's reprisal indicates "that man possessed a moral attribute" reveals an erroneous conception of morality. Adam feared God not because he knew there was something morally wrong with disobedience, but because he knew that God had the power to punish him. This seems pretty obvious because there was nothing immoral about eating from a tree. The only "sin" was disobedience to an arbitrary command. And besides, it would have been impossible for Adam to understand he was acting immorally if he had no knowledge of good and evil. The real issue is this: authentic morality is based on the nature of the act and how it affects others. Thus, it is grounded in what it is, not in obedience to arbitrary commands that no one can know anyway since we have no direct access to God. This is why I think the Bible is so destructive to good morals. It teaches OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY as the highest value.

The point of the fall is not so much about morality, but rather a lack of restraint. This is the issue. One can talk about a theory of morality, but it really is meaningless when the corrupted nature of man is omitted as the most significant factor. Human society in general can only operate in a civilized manner when excessive human passions are restrained. If you would agree, then you must ask yourself, why would anyone restrain themselves from exercising a crime of passion? Is it the certainty of punishment or is it the love for another? Those who would choose to go ahead and commit the crime anyway, are they insane or are they acting out their natural compulsion?

And what is the fruit of that teaching? Hitler's killers said they were "only obeying orders" when they murdered six thousand Jews.

The reality of this historical event is that many were probably convinced that they were doing God a service and even more astonishing is the fact that there were some who actually received satisfaction from their deadly task.

In many cases, disobedience would be the only moral choice, as for example, when God commanded all the men, women, and children of the Midianites be killed, except for 32,000 virgins that were then distributed to the soldiers.

This is one of those sobering passages of Scripture where God demonstrates sovereignty over His creation. There really are only two takes on this reference, (1) This is not God, or; (2) This is God showing another facet of His character. If it is not God, then relax, there is no danger. If it is God, then pay attention.

There is no problem with your belief that 1) there is a God, 2) he is more powerful than his creation, 3) That he can do miracles. But how are those questions relevant to the discussion at hand? Science remains valid, and God does not, as a general rule, do any of the things you asked about. This is why science is successful and why the God hypothesis is superfluous. There are no measurable phenomena that require God as an explanation.

If you insist on staying within the realm or real science, which is, in its most pristine definition, "a search for truth, wherever it leads", then one must be open to the supernatural, otherwise, natural science alone can only lead to one conclusion... something from nothing. Is that what you believe?

The problems with a "literal interpretation" of Genesis is not that they contradict only evolution, but rather that they contradict the entire edifice of science. The Bible is literally false from the first verse if you take it "literally" since the "heavens" (universe) began 13.75 billion years ago, whereas the "earth" was formed only 4.5 billion years ago. So they were not created together "in the beginning." And worse, evolution is an established fact no less certain than gravity, so you have set the Bible against Reality itself, not merely "science." It's fine if you want to say that God created all the animals in a way that happens to look like evolution, but you can't deny that evolution is a fact without denying the mutually confirming independent evidence of the entire fossil record (written in stone), the DNA evidence (which we use to establish paternity in court), and the morphology that all conspire to support the phylogenetic tree of life. The undeniable fact is that older fossils show that organisms changed over time and that's the definition of evolution. Theories about what caused those changes are "theories of evolution" that are meant to explain the "fact of evolution." It's OK if you want to propose the theory that "God did it" but I trust you understand why that's not a very enlightening theory.

Here's the problem with putting all your eggs in the naturalistic sciences basket... it leads to nowhere. Think about it.

I'm really glad you are taking time to discuss this with me. I hope the conversation continues.

All the best to you, my good friend,

Richard

I am glad also. It is good to exercise the mind.

Your friend,

John

Leave Comment

Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

Recent Forum Posts

9 1 1

9 1 1

Material Chemicals

the white tree of gondor {hidden kabbalah}

9 1 1

Awesome list

Computer Programming questions & info

Would you choose to be a God of dumb animals?

9 1 1

9 1 1

Do you argue to win or to lose?

The Logic of Love: A Natural Theory of Morality

vBulletin Message

The following errors occurred with your submission