Does Morality come from God, Evolution or both?

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

I should be shot in the face for that missing apostrophe.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

Would that be a rational certainty or a mathematical one?

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

A RIGHTEOUS one!

[Christopher_Michael]

Quoting what stood out to me from posts 100-183. I’ve been thinking quite a lot about this whole topic. I’ll post something about all that soon, for records sake as I do realise the overall discussion has petered out.

@T_aquaticus

The grander question is if there is an objective morality, could we humans even know what it is?

@T_aquaticus

The absolute best we can do is subjective morality

@Mervin_Bitikofer

there are such things as “unjust laws” and “systemic injustice”. Cultural norms are no longer an adequate adjudicator to drive those questions since it may be those very cultural norms that need to be called into question. Here is where a simple “evolutionary basis” of morality begins to show its first signs of weakness. It gives no tools or footholds for any such “speaking of truth to power”.

@Mervin_Bitikofer

the one thing most religions do well (for better or worse depending on that religion’s actual moral content) is to lift an individual’s vision up above themselves and even beyond their own family or tribe

@T_aquaticus

There are very consistent threads that run through human society, such as not wanting our stuff to be taken from us, self determination, and loving our family members, just to name a few. We often call these basic human rights, and they are firmly grounded in the subjective human experience. In fact, nothing in moral philosophy makes sense outside of the human experience.

@T_aquaticus

I am able to find meaning in life even though I don’t see any intrinsic meaning in the universe. To use an analogy, I don’t fret about the lack and meaning and purpose in a roller coaster because I am enjoying the ride. Does the roller coaster move along a set path without caring about how I feel or even if I live? Sure. Does the roller coaster end up right where it started? Yeah. Am I screaming with glee like a 10 year old along the entire route? Yep.

@Ani99

The only reasonable way to explain decoherence is if the two particles, which cannot be defined separately when entangled, share a common information set. This has to be a non-physical reality.
I am not alone here in seeing a non-physical or abstract reality.

@mitchellmckain

Nothing is more cultural than religion. So called “transcendent points of reference” are too subjective to provide anything which can be called objective – that is a reality of the human condition.

@mitchellmckain

Saying they Aztecs and Nazis had every right to construct their moral system cannot change the negative impacts that what they did had on their own society and economy – things which are measurable. Now to be sure this kind of thing doesn’t only happen with theism and religion, the ideology of the communists did just fine in destroying their society and economy without any gods or religion and the lip service they paid to science didn’t help in the least.

@mitchellmckain

Our experience of God is very subjective.

@mitchellmckain

What we see of Him will always depend on our own state of consciousness, awareness, and ability… as well as what we want and believe.

@mitchellmckain

Whether you see God as an objective reality or not, this doesn’t change the fact that there is no objectivity or absoluteness inherent in a religious or theistic perspective. There is no objectivity because there is no basis for a reasonable expectation for others to agree with anything you say about God let alone what you claim God says. There is nothing absolute because the things people say about God or about what God says varies from person to person as well as from one religion to another. So this is at least as subjective and relative as anything coming from social convention.

@chadrmangum

morality would be objective if it is defined by something (or someone!) entirely independent of and external to human existence and human purview.

@chadrmangum

If all truth belongs to God, as I believe it does, then we ought not shy away from asking honest questions, and I don’t believe God discourages such honest questions

@Daniel_Fisher

was morality a scheme that we humans invented (such as designating red mean “stop” and green to mean “go”)…

or is morality something that we humans discovered , more akin to the multiplication table.

If the former, then there is nothing inherently “wrong” or “right” inherent in it. we invented it, we could have made it different, and there is nothing outside us that says we would be wrong if we had made it differently.

But if the latter, then we would be wrong if our multiplication table said that 3x3 were 6. Principles of math are not for us to discover, not to invent.

@T_aquaticus

Many cultures claim to have received morality from a deity, and yet those moral codes contradict one another. Those cultures all claim that their moral codes are objective, yet they disagree with the alleged objective morality in other cultures. So which one is right? Are any of them right?

From what I can see, morality doesn’t make sense outside of the human experience. A subjective morality is a much better moral system than a claimed objective one.

[Christopher_Michael]

This has been a very interesting discussion. Where else on the internet do people talk through such deep themes - if there are other sources (Reddit threads?) let me know but I consider this chat forum here on BioLogos would literally be one the best.

I’ve reflected quite a bit on the themes, they touch on so many elements. Here are my main thoughts:

1. The evolution of morality itself has been a human process. It has been very much tied to the evolution of religion. As human groups came together more - they needed something to curve the destructive instincts that would rear up in social groupings. They needed an effective mechanism to punish/create fear of punishment but also to unite - which religion does extremely well. Religion also gave reasonable templates for understanding unexplainable or scary phenomena (like lighting and why a crop failed and village starved etc). In this sense religion was extremely adaptive.

2. Still today religious belief acts as a foundation which much has been built upon. Really, the “why” we should not do this or do that - is based on our religious history (I still choose to swear on the Bible if I’ve written a report for court for this reason, out of respect).

3. Somewhat ironically, religion very much obscured the truth of how we actually came to be (evolution, sigh). Religion’s various origin stories were way off the mark as pertains to the actual picture from a factual perspective. One can’t be blamed for thinking that if the higher powers religion speaks of were actually imparting the knowledge and were ‘over’ the evolutionary process … that they might have revealed to us how we actually came about (in a way they people then could understand). You’d also think there’d be at least a bit more uniformity in religion across time and space, if they were reflecting actual truths. Indeed, when you think about it … which statement makes greater sense to the human experience ‘we evolved and part of that evolution was the creation of all kinds of weird, wonderful and sometimes wretched belief systems, including all kinds of gods and a God’ OR ‘this one strain of religious thought from the [ancient Middle East] or [insert personal preference here] is actually the right one’?? I mean it’s a hard reality to face but in answering the question and using Occam’s razor - it’s obviously the first. If you had to literally bet your house on it - which option would you choose?? This does not mean there is not a higher power of course - I believe there very much is - but I believe humanity has been grasping at and trying to reach and understand that reality, which all religions are a reflection of - the human attempt to understand the unexplainable.

4. I don’t think any religion has quite nailed this reflection of what there actually is - because, like how the discovery of evolution showed us reality - not until the process of scientific deduction is applied to what we consider spiritual in earnest, are we likely to start actually seeing the bigger picture. Google ‘Super human film’ for a taste of that. That said, religion has given us many of the puzzle pieces but the overall picture is incomplete.

5. When people understand we evolved and that much of religion isn’t what they previously thought (i.e. actual fact) - moral foundations can be shaken.
   Thankfully though, the general principles of cooperation, higher thinking, kindness and forgiveness etc from the positive religions that have survived the historical winnowing process mean those norms are so ingrained in society. Humans have won the lottery to the extent this happens - we’ve realised the benefit of such modes of thinking but really, they could’ve only come about via religion, or at least that’s how they did.

6. Those norms have taken on a life of their own now - think of our laws. In a way, those values and practices in and of themselves are like a new religion - without the attached mystical thinking. We must thank primarily Abrahamic monotheism and (to a lesser extent??) Buddhist teaching for this!! Humanity owes a great deal to their influence.

I’ll leave it there for the minute.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

I only ever affirm. If my word isn’t good enough, nothing else can make it.

[T_aquaticus]

@Christopher_Michael

• The evolution of morality itself has been a human process. It has been very much tied to the evolution of religion. As human groups came together more - they needed something to curve the destructive instincts that would rear up in social groupings. They needed an effective mechanism to punish/create fear of punishment but also to unite - which religion does extremely well. Religion also gave reasonable templates for understanding unexplainable or scary phenomena (like lighting and why a crop failed and village starved etc). In this sense religion was extremely adaptive.

My understatement of the year . . . The relationship between religion and morality is complicated.

Religion has been used to unite and divide. Religion has been used as source of justice and injustice. We actively judge whether religions are good or bad, and what we use for that judgment is our inner sense of morality. For me, the least convincing moral argument is “because my religion says so”. Moral authority is found in moral arguments that derive their strength from the human experience which involves wants, needs, and emotions.

Why shouldn’t we steal other peoples’ belongings? Is it because the Bible forbids it, or is it because it harms the person who is stolen from? Also, would you want your stuff stolen, and if not then why should you be allowed to go against the wishes of others? “The Bible says so” only leads to questions of why the Bible says that. Without moral philosophy based in human experience we would only have an arbitrary set of rules that we choose to obey. I don’t see how morality and obedience are the same thing.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Another way to think about morality is as laws of love. And if a loving father (or Father) made rules for the smooth and conflict-free operation of his household, a loving child would want to please their father (or Father) by being obedient, even if they didn’t currently understand the rationale behind the rule.

[Daniel_Fisher]

@chadrmangum

the immediate source of morality, including the mechanism(s) by which humans come to know morality (evolution, a direct divine impartation, etc.). This could also include the question about morality being unique to humans or not;

(also, if interesting, C. S. Lewis made the observation that we primarily learn morality from our family, parents, teachers, etc., not unlike the way we learned math, the multiplication table, scientific facts, etc… but in neither case does this somehow automatically mean they cease to be absolute realities.)

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Daniel_Fisher

@chadrmangum

the immediate source of morality, including the mechanism(s) by which humans come to know morality (evolution, a direct divine impartation, etc.). This could also include the question about morality being unique to humans or not;

(also, if interesting, C. S. Lewis made the observation that we primarily learn morality from our family, parents, teachers, etc., not unlike the way we learned math, the multiplication table, scientific facts, etc… but in neither case does this somehow automatically mean they cease to be absolute realities.)

How do they become absolute realities, whatever they are?

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Dale

Another way to think about morality is as laws of love. And if a loving father (or Father) made rules for the smooth and conflict-free operation of his household, a loving child would want to please their father (or Father) by being obedient, even if they didn’t currently understand the rationale behind the rule.

What, like burning all parties if a guy marries a mother and daughter? As a taster for burning the frightened and infidel?

[Daniel_Fisher]

Your existence is an absolute reality. That existence is in fact true, whether or not I was aware of your existence, nor whether I disbelieve in your existence. That fact doesn’t “become” an absolute reality, it simply is an absolute reality.

Can you agree with me that far?

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Daniel_Fisher

Your existence is an absolute reality. That existence is in fact true, whether or not I was aware of your existence, nor whether I disbelieve in your existence. That fact doesn’t “become” an absolute reality, it simply is an absolute reality.

Can you agree with me that far?

Philosophically, no, but pragmatically, yes. Although ‘absolute’ is redundant. ‘I’ am a centre of consciousness like you. ‘We’ exist as such for now.

[T_aquaticus]

@Dale

Another way to think about morality is as laws of love.

I think that is a great way of approaching it. If God created us with empathy and emotions then God could craft a moral code that would best fit those human characteristics. It would still be a subjective morality, but one tailored to humans. It would be a moral code based on wisdom instead of an objective standard.

[Cody_G (I have been crucified with Christ.)]

God is HOLY, RIGHTEOUS, JUST and LOVE , that is the standard for righteousness. Righteouness is not based on man’s character or thoughts but on God’s.

[GJ242 (Gabriel)]

God Loves you.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@GJ242

God Loves you.

Meaning what? How? In what way? Compared with how I love my loved ones and they love me?

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Or, it could be based on the design of the ‘equipment’, the objective rules for its best operation, like not putting sugar in your gas tank.

[Cody_G (I have been crucified with Christ.)]

@Klax

@GJ242

God Loves you.

Meaning what? How? In what way? Compared with how I love my loved ones and they love me?

You really have no correct concept of God’s love for us do you. You judge Him and His Son incorrectly.

This is the love of God for us.

Romans 5 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only so, but we also rejoice in our sufferings, because we know that suffering produces perseverance; 4 perseverance, character; and character, hope. 5 And hope does not disappoint us, because God has poured out his love into our hearts by the Holy Spirit, whom he has given us.

6 You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. 8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

9 Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall we be saved from God’s wrath through him! 10 For if, when we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!

When puny little man judges his creator and puts his thoughts above God’s, then there is no way for that man to know the Father or the Son. To submit to Jesus as Sovereign Lord now is to become a child of the Father, to judge Him incorrectly and not put all your trust in His work on the cross is to never enter into eternal life.

Don’t redirect by asking one of your questions, just read and believe what Jesus said.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

Morning & Evening, Evening, September 2: