Posted on 01/03/2008 8:33:44 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
it is passed on from one generation to another
“See post 29, you are 100% right about Einstein.”
I believe Einstein’s “religion without science is blind”, is that most fundamental pillar of belief in God.....faith.
A magnificently challenging intellectual concept, yet fully accessible and understandable to even the most humble of men.
Nobody in this thread (or anywhere else that I'm aware of) said that Albert Einstein was Billy Graham with weird hair, we said he believed in the presence of a Creator.
“So I believe without God the best state one can be in is legal.”
You can believe whatever you want. What matters is behaviour. Does belief in God prevent a Mafia Don from ordering a hit? Is he more moral than the ‘atheist’ who goes to work every day to make an honest living?
See post 43. It’s for you, too.
“You can believe whatever you want. “
Thanks.
One atheist understood the moral consequences of his unbelief: That was Nietzsche, who argued that God is dead, but acknowledged that without God there could be no binding and objective moral order.
In fact most of his writings exist to extoll the binding order which he saw looming, and urged the world on to. He also saw this moral order as both older and more correct than the Christian moral order, which he dismissed as weak.
I would say that Nietzsche did more to build the moral order of the modern world than anyone else. Sadly, it has not worked out as he hoped and we are left with the chaos we see all around us.
But that still doesn't excuse Colson's poor summary, especially in this discussion where the other side has done the same thing (poor summary of Christianity) and been called on the carpet for it by Colson.
“Agnosticism is rationally defensible; atheism is not.”
These are all very shadowy terms. Smart people, in my view, are neither atheists nor embracers of any organized religion, but I’m not sure agnostic is the correct term. I prefer to call them ‘seekers of truth’.
“Agnosticism is rationally defensible; atheism is not.”
These are all very shadowy terms. Smart people, in my view, are neither atheists nor embracers of any organized religion, but I’m not sure agnostic is the correct term. I prefer to call them ‘seekers of truth’.
The purpose of this thread was to make the claim that morality required god. Einstein was quoted as parabolically supporting the notion. I supplied a quote where he specifically states that he does not believe that morality needs a god and I proved nothing to you. That is because you obviously don't know what constitutes proof.
Actually, such actions prove the Don doesn't have belief and the atheist does. If the Don murders people and says he folows the Way, the Truth and the Life, he is like a guy who says he believes in gravity but expects to park his car on air. Meanwhile, the atheist could be said to be following a moral code, and there's no such thing as a moral code without a codegiving God.
You seem to be inventing your own definition of "moral," though -- essentially claiming that "moral" is equivalent to the absolute set of principles about which I spoke. But that's begging the question -- it is precisely the meaning of "moral" that is at issue here.
If, instead, we go to the dictionary, we find moral defined as follows:
1 a: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical [moral judgments] b: expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior [a moral poem] c: conforming to a standard of right behavior d: sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment [a moral obligation]
There is no logical requirement for this definition to be grounded in any absolute sense -- as shown by the existence of various forms of moral relativism, such as the moral systems based on utilitarianism, social Darwinism, or hedonism.
To fully communicate the meaning, you've got to add in a modifier (e.g., "relative," or "subjective," or "absolute") to provide the proper sense of the term.
Without God you can not be moral, it maybe possible to be ethical. Since ethics are in general based on morality it may not be possible to even be ethical.
This is precisely what I'm talking about: one can certainly be "ethical" without reference to God, as ethical behavior is nothing more than "conforming to accepted standards of conduct." But even "might makes right" imposes standards.... and those standards which (as you note) are essentially defined by a moral system.
So I believe without God the best state one can be in is legal.
Legal is a rather vague term in this context -- I get the idea that you're using it in the sense of "conforming to or permitted by law or established rules." In that sense, it would seem to be a formalization of "ethical," but still in some sense based on an underlying moral system ... which, again, is not logically required to have any particular absolute basis.
The question is not morality per se, that is really at issue; but rather the nature and basis for morality.
Einstein states that he doesn’t believe in God over and over again and you choose to parse his words for meanings to the contrary. Why look for clues to what he thought when he TELLS you what he thought?
“Actually, such actions prove the Don doesn’t have belief and the atheist does.”
No disrespect meant on my part, but you’ve just entered into what we call a ‘circular argument’.
My personal belief is that, on average, religious people tend to be more moral than non-religious people, but that one cannot make any absolute statements that all morality comes from religion/God.
Well then - ok.
the belief in reward and punishment for good behavior does not create morality, just good behavior.
2. Nothing you've provided about Einstein does anything to disprove the need for God to give moral context. One can spout all sorts of moral platitudes and say that they are patently obvious even if one doesn't believe in God, but there is no reason to follow any particular moral structure that someone considers "obvious." In fact, an obvious moral order would seem to support the idea of a God.
That is because you obviously don't know what constitutes proof.
Well, I know that in post 19 you said...
Einstein didn't believe in God
...so get back to me when you've proved that.
I know some 'Reformed' theologists that would beg to differ. The short version being that anything not done for the glory of God is not good. And if you're an atheist, you can't possibly do something for the glory of God
“the belief in reward and punishment for good behavior does not create morality”
I guess we need a dictionary definition of morality, then.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morality
morality= conformity to the rules of right conduct
Under that definition, it does not matter that the religious person believes in reward or punishment, just that their behaviour follows the ‘rules of right conduct’.
“That was Nietzsche, who argued that God is dead...”
BS - he argued that modern man had killed God with the newer forms of Christianity wherein believers profess a familiarity with the divine that connotes having double dated Jesus or shopping at the mall with him.
Beware of “relevent” religions where believers “know” God is what Nietzshe was saying.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.