Could it be that these generally accepted moral principles are imprinted on our hearts by God?


The moral laws are based on God's nature. Sin is what is contrary to God's nature. And there were no absolutes before God. There was nothing before God.
Yes, I know you're gonna start asking how we can prove this, and saying that this is impossible. I can not prove "scientifically" that God came before a "set of morals", and you can not prove that these "set of morals" always were, or never were, whichever it may be. This is where the element faith comes into play. I believe that God exists, and can see proof for that through science, morals and logic. If you do not believe in God, you choose not to see proof for God in science, logic and morals. It comes down to faith.
I know few minds are changed by these forum arguments, but I hope and pray that you and others might be.[/i]

Absolutely agreed. Since joining this site (albeit that's a rather recent occurrence), this thread has been one of my favorites.

Even though bantering about this has seriously drawn away from the crapload of studying that I have to do (in case anyone is wondering, general biology 102 is a terrible and terribly run course), the intellectual discussion makes me happy.

I can't wait to start taking philosophy courses for my minor

Yes, but not based on arbitrary personal choices.
God used those commands to judge people who disobeyed his law.
Also, the way you phrase it intentionally skews it. That is like saying in the U.S., you can just kill people, all you want, go for it. Whereas, in reality, the govenment can use execution as punishment for a crime.


I'll get back to you on this, I have to go to class now.

Punishment for a crime is also a matter of morality and ethics.
America's use of capital punishment is seen as morally wrong and unethical to the majority of the world. This doesn't make it wrong, it just makes it different (not "absolute and unchanging").

Btw, Foot, if you play your cards right you can play Canuck in my movie.

Not likely, especially since it takes a Christian to find morality in the Bible. Any impartial observer finds it filled with barbaric laws and tales of genocide.



But the question is from what does God obtain his nature? Why does God think murder is immoral? Did he decide that this would be his nature, or has he always just been that way?

If he decided on his own nature, he had to have based it on something other than his own nature because he wouldn't have it yet.

If he just is the way he is and had no say in the matter, why is he like that as opposed to any other possible way, and why do we see said pattern in his alleged nature?

Again, it just makes more sense to exclude god altogether. Sure, anybody can feel like they are accomplishing a level of armchair intellect by asserting "God did it" into the unknowns about the universe, but it is more honest to first admit that we don't know everything by "heart".

The obvious place to look regarding our behavior is evolution. Humans evolved in a complex social environment in which altruism and empathy played a significant role in the survival of our species. There is an entire science devoted to discovering the true-to-life origins of morality. The only problem is that, as happened in astronomy, biology and geology and any other science which makes discoveries against the teachings of religion, religion is undermining reason by continuing to support ancient scripture.


You don't see "proof" of God anywhere. But that's okay for you. You have faith. If you value faith (I don't, personally), you really shouldn't seek evidence anyway.


Yeah, because in God's absolute moral authority (), I am on a pathway to spend the rest of eternity burning in the flames of Hell.

Make sure to say hi to Ghandi when you get there

Sigh. Time to dive back into this thread.

Studying for my Ecology & Evolution midterm sparked this idea. Hopefully it is as logical on paper as it is in my head.

Natural selection led to the formation of ethics and moral codes.

Step 1 - Define Natural Selection
Step 2 - How Could Natural Selection Lead to Ethics?
Step 3 - We'll figure out Step 3 when we get there

Step 1
Natural selection can be defined as "differential survival and reproduction of individuals with certain advantageous traits adapted to a local environment".

Many people refer to this as "survival of the fittest" where fitness can be described as "the contribution an individual makes towards the next future generation relative to other individuals". The most "fit" person can be described as a grandparent (genetic code passed on to two generations).

Step 2
How could natural selection lead to ethics and morality? The simple answer is adaptive pressures. Let's take the example of killing your child. From the standpoint of the species, killing your child makes absolutely no sense. The entire point of a species is to pass on genetic information via progeny. If we all go and kill our progeny, the species does not survive. Over many generations, females would select partners that were less likely to kill their offspring. Voila! Morality!

Let's take another example. This one's been popular on this thread - child molestation. We know this as being ethically, morally, legally, and terribly wrong. Now let's add another adverb to that list - it is adaptively wrong. As I previously mentioned, there is a strong correlation between child molestation and a host of psychological problems (I had been specifically referring to re-victimization at the time). These psychological problems significantly decrease the chances of progeny being procreated. Selective pressures would dictate that child molestation is a bad thing and eventually the species would shun child molesters. Voila! Morality...again!

Natural selection has a tendency to produce the most "fit" individuals for a local environment. The most "fit" individuals would not be those limiting the continuation of the species by decreasing the population size.

Step 3
I THOUGHT OF SOMETHING TO PUT HERE
Over time, selective pressures lead to adaptations. Morality and ethics can be seen as an adaptation unique to humans. Even our closest relatives (Old World Monkeys such as Great Apes) murder.

Our evolving technologies and increasing intellect have allowed us to venture from such basic applications of morality and ethics into gray areas that we would not have encountered otherwise. For example, abortion falls within this gray area. Without technology, abortions would not have been a possibility. The urge to protect life and young have led some to be pro-life. An ever-evolving understanding of rights and decision-making have led another group to be pro-choice.


I hope that my logic is clear.
Canuck, you were looking for a mechanism describing the implementation of ethics without a helping hand from your God, so I've provided one.

Please note that I am referring to natural selection and NOT evolution. Evolution (Latin for "unrolling of a scroll") implies that there is a predetermined path. Natural selection does not have the same implication.

I just effectively contributed to PSC while studying. Miraculous.

All right! I hope he's a druggie polar bear affected by global warming. Instant Oscar!

Absolutely true!!!

But like I said yesterday, I'm mostly bored about the subject.
Maybe because I lost too much time being bored in churches when I was young.
I have more interest about psychology or politics... but nice to see that some enjoy it.

Unique to humans because animals commit murder? That makes no sense seeing as how humans commit murder too.

The evolution of morality is far from unique to mankind. Many animals, particularly apes, show many similar ethical qualities in their behavior as humans do. One experiment showed that some will starve themselves for days at a time if they know that eating will deliver a painful electric shock to second ape in the experiment.

Studies in the wild have also shown signs of the emotion "guilt". Regularly, when an amount of food is discovered the individual who finds it will not eat until he has alerted the rest of his group of his finding. Sometimes, however, they will begin to eat and if they are caught in the act they will try to hide the evidence.


Latin roots are not the be-all-end-all of the meaning of words. The term "evolution" is inclusive of natural selection and random variation.

Other than than, I agree with much of what you said.

Yes. I do.
And before I make an unfounded assumption, I'll ask something.
Are you open to the idea of there being something greater/supernatural? Or is that impossible?

I'm game! Start a politics thread! (Just dont tell Splodge)

Hey folks! Sorry, been super busy, but I’ll try to catch up now. I have read through the comments and I am pleased that this thread is being enjoyed by many of you rather than the perception of it being a downer.

I have never said that the ONLY thing I find immoral about child molestation is religious dogma. It is my point that no one can justify ANYTHING as being immoral, absent ‘religious dogma.’

No problem, bring them in, and I will show you why, absent an absolute standard, none of them give you ‘immorality.’

Actually it is not a variation of the cosmological argument. While I feel the cosmological argument may offer comfort to Christians, I feel that it is a poor argument for apologetics (defense of the faith). (If you are interested in why I feel that the cosmological argument is poor, I will be glad to elaborate).
This argument is called a ‘transcendental argument’ which argues for the necessary preconditions to such things a intelligibility. Without presupposing God, one could not make sense of anything, let alone causality. That is my challenge, not one of causality but one of preconditions. How can one make sense of ANYTHING without presupposing God. For example, you are trying to formualte a logical argument against me, which presupposes absolute laws of logic. Problem is, you have yet to tell us how universal, abstract, invariant laws make sense in your worldview. Without absolute laws of logic, nothing, and definitely not my argument, can be absolutely fallacious.

Exactly. If evolutionary theory was true, all it could give us is 'what is,' not 'what ought to be.'

Ok. Back to this.
In our modern times we relate slavery instantly to the Trans-Atlantic slave trade of the 18th-19th century/Period of western colonization. This was an atrocity. The slaves were kidnapped from their home and forced to work.
But, not all "slavery" was like this. For instance, in the early days of America, people would agree to be Indentured Servants (essentially slaves) for a wealthy person for a certain amount of time, if the person would pay their passage across the Atlantic.

Yes, Jesus made references to slaves obeying their masters, but, most of the "slaves" were Indentured Servants, Criminals serving a sentence, or prisoners of war. Jewish law also had strict laws governing treatments of slaves, and years when slaves were to be freed (Jubilee).