Hello Algebe (brit)

"You're missing a very important distinction here. The homosexual harms no-one and merely asks to be left in peace to live his/her life. The rapist and murderer harm others and must be stopped. It's true that their urges also may result from genetic and environmental factors, but there is a difference between an urge to rape/kill and the act itself.”

Let me remind you of what are discussion is all about… we are trying to figure out the most reliable standard to judge right and wrong. But now you are indulging in begging-the-question fallacy. You have assumed that raping, killing and harming others is morally wrong. And based on that assumption you are shifting the goal post of your moral principle. You justified homosexuality on the basis on ‘innate’ tendency. If that’s your standard, then it clearly doesn’t apply to ‘rapists’ etc. as you have just demonstrated. Therefore, I am still waiting to understand what the standard for your moral guidance is? Didn’t our whole discussion start from the point of golden rule, which I have been arguing is not a reliable measure… and you are just reinforcing my argument.

You said: “Harming others is immoral. We don't need god to tell us that.”

Where did you get that dictum from? If harming others is immoral, who is the ‘others’… why are ‘animals’ and ‘fetuses in the womb’ not part of that ‘others’? Please don’t think I am being difficult. I am trying to draw your attention to the most essential question of ‘standard for morality’? as you seem to be moving away from that question.

The problem is that we draw our sense of morality from so many different factors – life experience, upbringing, schooling, books we read etc… that we tend to take some of our basic assumptions that are so deeply ingrained in us as something natural. You feel killing animals is perfectly normal, because of the setting in which you grew up… if you had been a cannibal, you would feel eating humans from other tribes is perfectly normal, and you would have no compunction in doing so, just as you don’t feel any guilt eating animals.

You said: “Our evolving human morality tells us that instead of seeking revenge, we should try to find ways to cure people with urges to harm others. "Objective" religious laws tell us to stone them.”

Once again… what makes you think that your evolving morality is right? How much more do you need to evolve before you can say that ‘now our morality is perfect’? What guarantee do you have that 500 years later your evolving morality will not go back on some of the morals that you uphold now.

You said: “I still can't accept your claim of god as an objective basis for morality. Faith is subjective, and faith is the entire foundation for god-based morality.”

I think, I have explained it in detail already. Don’t you agree that objectivity can emerge from a subjective basis? What have you to say about my examples regarding it? But let me shed some more light on why I think morals based on religion stand on a more solid foundation than your ‘evolving’ morality?

Man is basically a utilitarian. He does something only if he finds a benefit in it. I go to work because I get a salary. Now, morality is not about doing something that is of benefit to me personally… rather it is about compromising a personal benefit for the benefit of another. If I eat healthy food, that is not an act in morality. However, when I share that food with a hungry man, it becomes a moral deed. Therefore, morality is more about sacrificing one’s benefit, which actually goes against our natural tendency of ‘self preservation.’ This calls for a very high degree of motivation for someone to indulge in a moral act, because overcoming our natural selfishness is not easy.

This is where religious morality stands on solid grounds. Firstly, it gives me a very clear picture of what is right and what is wrong. I am not confused about ‘animal’ rights, abortion etc. Second of all, I know that what is right is eternally right, and what is wrong is eternally wrong. This gives me the confidence to indulge in morality without the uncomfortable idea that perhaps 10 years later this could be deemed immoral. Lastly, the benefits of doing the moral act (sacrifice) are clear… reward from God. I have clarity, I have confidence and I have the motivation.

Whereas take your ‘evolving’ morality. You can’t be 100% confident about any act of morality. Because 200 years ago, the commonly accepted norm was in favor of slavery. Now it suddenly seems immoral. Child marriage was normal… now it’s immoral. Can you be confident that what you have discovered to be moral today would stay so 100 years later?

The problem is that often our measuring sticks are not adequate for us to analyze the full impact of our deeds. Take for example homosexuality… firstly there are many medical studies coming out about the harmful effects of homosexuality to the individuals indulging in it. May be in future studies might bring out its full impact on society. When man indulges in some actions in fewer numbers the impact on the society would be very different from the same action done in greater numbers. For example, let’s say very few people in a society are alcoholics… this society would be very different from a society in which most are alcoholics… in such a society the crime rates would be higher, there would be more broken families, leading to misguided children who would then become anti socials elements… and the problem would keep spiraling out. Likewise in a society where homosexuality exceeds a certain percentage of the population… it might lead to spread of diseases, unhappy heterosexual marriages, broken families, misguided children or even a drop in the population which can hit the economy with drop in productivity and so on… imagine if this were the case, it’s not just enough to stay away from homosexuality, but it would also make it imperative for us to teach the next generation the right values… in other words tell them that homosexuality is a despicable act that one has to stay away from. If the values are fed then at least we can curtail the alarming increase in the numbers… which as I demonstrated above can change the whole picture for the worse.

Secondly, let’s say that you have understood the correct moral values using your ‘evolving’ method. But then you have the huge problem of motivation. Why should you give your hard earned money to a poor man, when you don’t see any tangible benefit in it for you? Or why should you stay away from committing an immoral act if you can clearly benefit from it? For example, if you know that you can become rich by accepting bribes, why shouldn’t you indulge in it?

You said: “In fact, many aspects of religious morality are increasingly seen as immoral, such as genital mutilation of infants in Islam and Judaism, and the persecution of homosexuals in Christian societies.”

Yes, I agree there are value systems (religions and otherwise) that have harmful practices. If you are talking of male circumcision in Islam or Judaism – it’s not immoral or harmful. In fact doctors recommend it, and it’s done even by people of other faiths due to its beneficial effects. If you are talking of female genital mutilation, it’s not from faith… it’s cultural, and in Islam many scholars have denounced it.

You said: “I'm not sure I understand your distinction between god as a mechanism and god as an agent. Why do you need god as anything? Why not keep trying until you find a way to open that watch and look inside at all the gears and springs? Then go one step further and figure out where the watch came from. We should never curb our curiosity or surrender our reason. Those are fundamental to what we are.”

The idea of ‘god’ as the agent is a very logical conclusion that sits well with our everyday understanding of the world around us. Just ask yourself how or when do you impute design to something? The answer is specified complexity. When you have a lot of parts… all arranged in a very specified pattern, such that the pattern provides a particular function… and even a minor change in that pattern disrupts the function, then you can confidently say that it’s been designed… meaning an intelligence has worked behind it. This is how you make conclusions every day in your life. Even a simple structure like the Stonehenge makes us look for the designer… we don’t dismiss it as having occurred through natural forces… the more complex a thing is, and more specified the arrangement is… the argument for design gets stronger. Our nature is extremely, extremely, extremely complex and specified…. there is no way you can rule out design.

Take the example of the watch… yes, if we get to open the watch and study the mechanism… we would be able to explain fully as to how the watch works… but from the specified complexity of the watch, we can easily surmise that some intelligent agent has actually built it. Whether we find out who it is or not, we can’t dispute that there was an intelligence behind it. The logic is the same for God.

Your said: “Exactly. But religions are really systems of laws, aren't they.”

Not exactly. Religions have laws… but they also have a moral system that is different from laws. (I am talking about Islam here). Laws are meant to facilitate the smooth functioning of a society. Morals are meant to provide the right course of action at a persona level. In an Islamic state, a person cannot be punished for being stingy. But the moral value in Islam says that stinginess is a sin. So something can be a sin morally, and not a crime legally. Hope the difference is clear.