Should we just believe in a god...

Haha - no, i was just a physics major.

but seriously, our reality is more similar to the matrix. think about it, it's all made up of mathematical vibrating strings that have no existence.

 

For most people, believing in God is just a form of moral construct anyway.

You answer to God because God is the ultimate finger-wagger in the sky if you do something he doesn't like. Then you define what God frowns upon as "bad" even though you have no direct contact with God. Ultimately people shape God into God that fits their own particular set of morals.

1.) I am a Christian and I do not touch alcohol because God explicitly forbids it in the Bible.

2.) I am a Christian but I really like getting wasted on Friday night. Jesus drank wine once at a party, therefor I think its fine if I get wasted on Friday Night.


So defining God as the invisible moral compass in the sky ultimately creates a division in society because it becomes individual perception and the idea of "God" seems to be more like extreme moral relativism. Ultimately the Social Contract becomes mired by people who can't agree what the Will of God is, and then we have the wars and people get all dead and stuff.

 

You're talking about religion...not God.

 

You're right. Religion is people trying to do what God wants as long as it fits their particular beliefs.

It is certainly possible and even wise to adhere to a simple code of ethics like Jesus talked about in the Sermon on the Mount.

But when you try to equate every modern problem to "The Will of God" you get a mess of Religion trying to act as Ethics.

 

When I want to know people's opinion of what God's 'will' is, or right and wrong, I go to the 4 and 5 year old kids and ask them.

Better chance of getting it right.

 

There really is nothing more phenomenal in nature than the learning capabilities of a newborn brain. It is something perhaps we will never figure out just what the limits are.

I've only read a few articles on neuron research and early childhood development, but it is astonishing to me that a young child could grow up in a home in which adults speak 2 or even 3 or 4 different languages and that child would be able to speak all of them intimately by the age of 4.

Just makes me really ponder if it could have all really happened by chance.

 

or so says string theory..

of course, it is all, just a theory

 

Good stuff.

I have been amazed when I sit down with small kids and present them complex and serious relationship issues how simple and beneficial their answers can be.

I don't discuss moral issues with people without giving strong consideration to the impact of adults choices on small children.

I'm pretty much for doing anything that that does not have the potential to impact small children with emotional, mental or physical harm. If it damages a little child I don't see the benefit. And if you have to hide it from children I question the wisdom.

Of course adults can handle observing far more evil than children, but I don't see any benefit in participating in harmful activities much more than a child should.

I have also seen that what an adult excuses in moderation a child will excuse in excess. Most parents don't realize this until their children are around 14-16 years old.
Most parenting mistakes don't even hit the surface until age 13-14 IMHO

I just think morals are clearer to children in general than adults. With or without religion.

I often hear the term 'consenting adults' but it is used in a vacuum as if no children are ever affected at all by adult choices. I brought all this up because often God's Will is discussed in the same vacuum.

 

Try this one on small children.

A man has a seriously ill wife but has no money to pay for her medicine. He breaks into a pharmacy and steals the medicine and saves her life.

Should the man get into trouble and why?

At a young enough age, what you're most likely to get is it's wrong, and it's wrong because the man will get into trouble.

Also, young children cannot grasp the concept of a universal. They can learn that Aunt Jill has died, but can't understand that everyone will die. If you're looking for moral insight and tools to make better decisions, I would suggest the 3 critiques of Kant.

 

I would just guess to say that if I asked that question to small children they would tell me someone should help that man buy the medicine his wife needs so he wouldn't be tempted to steal in desparation.

I think they would tell me that people should help one another when they are in that kind of need.

I don't think they would condone stealing or condemn a desparate action, that's how smart little kids are.

Also there is no moral concept in death itself. If someone dies children can understand that there is a loss.

I am not suggesting that kids are the final answer to moral questions, just saying that in my experience they often do better than adults and adults need to consider the great impact they have upon small children.

 

Children are selfish liars.

(Much like adults.)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_dilemma
A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $1,000 which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said: "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.

Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not?


I missed a few wrinkles in the question so I thought I'd post it.


I get that, and children can offer a refreshing perspective. And I may never agree with anything more than your statement re: adults shaping children.

 

spiritual agnosticism. To be an atheist and then declare there is a God, is to stop being an atheist.

That said, I'm right there with ya... give or take.

 

i'm not sure life moves in black and white enough to call what he did either right or wrong. a lot of life is that way. this is where religion fails, i think. but i believe God is merciful either way.

 

You're asking the wrong question. If "we" (meaning humankind- not you or me specific) love people enough we can look at situtations like this and ask the logical questions. (edit)

In that story the correct question should be why wouldn't the druggist just give the medicine to him out of love and compassion? Let's answer the right question first.

Another good question is why didn't anyone else help him? (edit- not talking about those who helped all they could, but others in the community or family)

Those who would not help committed the greater crime.

Now to specifically answer your question Heinz should never have been put in that desparate of a situation to begin with and to be more specific these circumstances would be considered by any wise judge when reviewing the situation.


If you are asking me when stealing becomes right, it never is right.

If you would get to the root of the problem it is not the theft, that happened under severe desparation, the real crime in that story is how selfish and cruel the people treated Heinz.

I would give Heinz a very light sentence myself and throw the rest of them in the dungeon (but then I'm not a judge )

 

If our way of life is supposedly guided by what religion teaches us, how can it fail?

In this case did religion failed or did society failed to save this woman?

 

religion fails in that it seeks to impose absolutes to situations that don't lend themselves to absolutes.

religion didn't fail to save the woman because it never tried. religion, as i understand it, is trying to answer the question of "was it wrong or was it right" after it happened.

 

Stage seven (Hume) : It is impossible to reach a judgment (i.e. should) from an objective scenario, moral judgments are non-existent and are merely expressions of personal preference in the given situation. Thus, he neither should or should not have stolen the medicine, and to say otherwise is professing your arrogant opinion of something utterly intangible upon 'reality'.

 

so according to Hume it doesn't even matter if he cared to save his wife or not, or it wouldn't matter if he had the medicine but changed his mind about giving it to her.

if my little boy needs to get to a Hospital in my car in 10 minutes to save his life I don't care one flip if I'm speeding, I'm going to do what is right.

if you take away right and wrong you have nothing, no love, no goodness, no mercy and a world not worth living in