What difference does it make?

[DLH]

SIMPLY

What difference does it make whether OR NOT gods exist?

 

[NoHolyCows]

If morality is entirely dependent on God, then those who do not believe in God should have no ability to reason morally. Yet, we see that they do.

Not necessarily so. First of all, Dawkins, Harris, et al., can have been (and, indeed, have been) affected by the culture into which they were born and lived. Of course, they would have cherry-picked, and that is proper. Secondly, theists can (and have) asserted that there is such a property as the sensus divinatis and its cousin, the fitra, both of which can be associated with God in Genesis breathing life into man. This alleged property makes so-called moral reasoning a wide-spread natural ability.

If morality were truly objective in the way you claim, then you should be able to present a single moral law that has remained unchanged across all cultures and religions, independent of human interpretation.

This, too, is not necessarily so. By "objective", the theist can simply mean that moral being is not invented by and does not originate with humans. The intended point is that moral being seems to transcend mere human being. That aside, what we are referring to as the moral sense requires development - even in the case of theism-based morality, and moral manifestation can simply reflect the extent of development as well as differing contexts. Then, there is also the matter of whether the proper context for assessing the moral sense is a social view or the individual.

If morality were truly objective in the way you claim, then you should be able to present a single moral law that has remained unchanged across all cultures and religions, independent of human interpretation.

Aside from whatever it is that DLH claims, it could well be an error - nah, it is in fact an error - to think that morality (including a theism-based morality) can be entailed by law(s) or that moral being is a determinate matter. Morality - particularly as made manifest by and in individuals, including a theism-based morality - can well be an indeterminate matter, a matter requiring ceaseless creativity and re-creation.

Of course they have—and so has everyone. Cultural influence is universal. But that doesn’t mean their moral reasoning is just borrowed from religion. Culture isn’t synonymous with religion, and moral ideas don’t only flow from religious traditions. Cultures are shaped by many forces: law, custom, language, philosophy, economics, and evolutionary pressures.

The claim here amounts to saying, “They live in a moral culture, so their morality must come from religion,” but this ignores that many moral concepts—like fairness, harm reduction, empathy—are natural human concerns that arise in any functioning society, religious or not. For example, Buddhist ethics, Confucian humanism, and the legal systems of ancient Mesopotamia and Greece evolved rich moral traditions outside of Abrahamic theism. These systems show that morality can develop independently of theism.

So yes, Dawkins and Harris were shaped by their cultures. But that doesn’t prove their moral reasoning is parasitic on religion—it shows morality can flourish in a human, rational, secular framework.

Calling secular moral reasoning “cherry-picking” assumes that moral truths are fixed, predefined, and must be accepted as a whole. But morality isn’t a buffet of eternal absolutes—it’s a process, refined through discourse, reflection, and lived experience. All moral systems, including religious ones, cherry-pick over time. No modern believer upholds every commandment in ancient scripture. Religious institutions themselves evolve by selectively emphasizing some teachings and quietly abandoning others.

So if selecting moral principles based on reason, evidence, and compassion is “cherry-picking,” then yes, it’s not only proper—it’s necessary. Blindly adhering to any system without critical judgment is not moral strength; it’s dogmatism.

Asserting that moral reasoning is a result of divine implantation doesn’t explain its presence—it just relocates the mystery. If sensus divinitatis exists, why do people disagree so widely, even among believers? Why do devout individuals commit moral atrocities in the name of the very God said to have gifted them that moral compass?

And if moral reasoning is truly “widespread,” that suggests it’s a human trait, not a divinely exclusive one. We see moral behavior in secular people, in children too young for theological instruction, and even in animals. Chimps, bonobos, and elephants demonstrate empathy, cooperation, fairness, and even grief. These behaviors are evolutionary, not theological.

If a divine “sense” were truly guiding moral reason, it should yield consistent, universal results. But what we observe are moral differences shaped by environment, upbringing, and critical thinking—not divine whispers. Calling it sensus divinitatis adds a mystical label to something better explained by biology, psychology, and social development.

So even if Dawkins, Harris, or anyone else is shaped by culture, refines their morality over time, or engages with moral reasoning, none of that requires a god. These are human things—natural, flexible, and ultimately grounded in our shared need to live together peacefully, not in the divine breath of ancient scripture.

If moral being “transcends” human origin yet still requires development, interpretation, and is shaped by differing social and individual contexts, then it isn’t actually transcendent in any meaningful way—it’s dependent on human cognition to take form. That’s like saying a universal language exists, but it only becomes meaningful after each person translates it differently, over time, based on their upbringing and environment. If a truth needs that much shaping before it’s recognized, it’s not standing above humanity—it’s woven into it.

To say morality is objective but also context-dependent is a contradiction masked in abstraction. Either moral truths are fixed—existing independently of us like the laws of physics—or they are contextual judgments, informed by our mental, emotional, and social development. If a principle changes its form and meaning based on personal or cultural development, it’s not a timeless standard. It’s an evolving idea—a product of time, thought, and collective experience.

And framing this as a “moral sense” that develops also brings us right back to a secular, human-based explanation: if this sense needs maturation and guidance to function, it behaves exactly like a psychological trait—not a pipeline to divine or metaphysical truth. No one says gravity needs emotional development to be recognized. If morality were like gravity, we wouldn’t need philosophy, education, or scripture to understand it. We’d just see it, equally, everywhere.

Appealing to individual or social context for assessing morality proves the point even more. Context-dependence is the hallmark of constructed, not discovered systems. Morality is real, yes—but it is real the way language, law, or art is real: emerging from human minds grappling with complex lives, not beamed in from some moral realm beyond. If it were truly objective and transcendent, we wouldn’t still be arguing about it after thousands of years.

If morality requires “ceaseless creativity and re-creation,” then it is, by definition, not objective—it is dynamic, evolving, and interpretive. To say morality is indeterminate but still somehow transcendent is to try and have it both ways: a standard that both guides and shifts, both exists beyond us and yet adapts to us. But a standard that bends and changes with human interpretation is not a fixed measure—it’s a living process, which is precisely what secular ethics already acknowledges.

Compare this to math or physics: we don’t “re-create” the law of gravity depending on how we feel about it or how society evolves. We don’t need “creativity” to understand that two plus two is four. If morality were truly objective in the same way, it would function like that—clear, discoverable, universal. But the moment we admit morality needs reinterpretation, personal insight, cultural context, or historical evolution, we are acknowledging its subjectivity, not its timelessness.

If, as stated, morality cannot be entailed by laws, then religious commandments also fail as moral anchors. They become suggestions interpreted through human lenses. And if they’re being interpreted—differently across time, place, and people—then their authority doesn’t come from the supposed divine origin, but from the human capacity to make sense of them in changing situations.

The idea that morality is an “indeterminate matter” requiring continual reinvention is not a defense of theism—it is a concession to humanism. It affirms that moral understanding is a creative, collaborative, and evolving endeavor. That’s not a weakness—it’s the strength of secular ethics: it allows growth. It doesn’t pretend there is a final moral blueprint written in the sky. It admits morality is shaped by human values, human pain, and human aspirations—not handed down but built up, and always subject to deeper insight as we go.

NHC

 

[DLH]

Maybe, depending on how you define objective.

I would define objectivity as the opposite of subjective, not emotional, or opinion. So, if someone was brainwashed by their culture into thinking a certain way about something - like a huge example is the Holocaust, they can't look at it objectively. You can tell this from the way they respond to it even though they will respond in a totally different way to a far worse offense that they haven't been influenced culturally with.

Christians like to claim that their morality is objective but mine is subjective.

I don't really think of morality in any other terms than behavior, but possibly (in fact often) just pretense; cowardice and hypocrisy. So, I can't readily relate to that being objective or subjective. I would think both depending on the circumstances. I say morality is fake, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Like a Rolex watch is fake, but real in that it exists. Meaning it just isn't what it's presented as or supposed to be.

How is morality objective or subjective? Could you give me some examples? I say it's subjective because it changes. What is thought to be moral in one time or place (culture) may not be thought of in that way in another time and/or place.

In support of this position, they two-step back and forth between incompatible definitions of morality.

Since you and I seem to have different perspectives on morality I'm not sure I get what you mean so I can't really determine if I agree or not. You would have to give me an example of two steps. So, I don't know if you would say I do that or in fact if I did or not. I suspect I would.

So long as you're consistent, I have no problem with your claim that morality is subjective.

Are you talking about what is moral from an individual perspective or about morality in general? Because I'm talking about it in a general sense. My opinion of morality is that it's a general agreement on how to behave and think which usually comes from the culture you reside in. For example, in most modern-day societies, at least in occidental cultures, it is thought of as pedophilia for a young girl, say 14 or 15 to have an intimate sexual relationship with a much older man, say 32. It's abhorrent, illegal, etc. That's because of the importance of education and just the way we raise our kids to be - sort of sheltered adorable little idiots.

In Jesus time it was much different. For example, Mary was 14 or 15 and Joseph was about 32. Sexual maturity was considered to be when they were able to procreate. For example, Bar mitzva, the boy becomes a man at 13. But a boy had to learn a trade, usually as an apprentice, and be able to support a family before he could start one. He would be sexually capable for much longer than a potential wife. A wife would then be younger.

otherwise it would be the same for everyone all throughout time.

Is this your test for whether other things are objective?

No, my test for that would be honesty and fairness. Morality, to me, being fake in the way I describe it above doesn't reflect upon moral behavior. When I was born, 1966 in the Midwestern US, a person could get arrested for just visiting a place known to be a homosexual gathering place. They would not only arrest you but put your name in the newspaper as having done that, so as to wreck your social life, work life - well, your life. Sort of like the Woke maniacs of today.

So, even when very young I had to hide my sexuality. It was morally corrupt. That has changed considerably. Now you're considered an outcast if you find homosexuality repulsive. I had to pretend not to be homosexual, or at least not be open about it.

So, you may agree to morality in pretense (moral cowardice) but actually behave differently.

Morality is whatever group you belong to deciding what is right and what is wrong for that specific time and then not doing it. Morality is a dog and pony show. ...

Sounds like you're a nihilist.

You're not the first to say that. I've looked at what it means and I just don't get it. I'm certainly not

You don't think morality is real? You don't think that kindness is better than rape and murder?

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth; I'm just asking questions that I think you have raised, inviting you to expand on your comments.

I think it is real, but it's subjective and often fake, like the Rolex I referred to. That doesn't mean it isn't real or it can't be genuine. To me it's just the necessity of an agreed upon behavior. Often though, in pretense.

As long as we're on the subject of nihilism, one of my favorite jokes:

"I'm not a nihilist. I'm a hypocrite. At least I have principles."

See, I don't get that because, even though I've tried I can't seem to grasp what it really is.

 

[steve_bank]

Nice desertion NoHolyCows.

Adding if the collective actions of bible believers observed for over 2000 years represents a motility to be followed I will remain atheist. Inclusive of Jews and Muslims. We are watching Jewish bible based Zionism at work in Gaza and the West Bank.


The idea the bible represents an absolute morality is not just indefensible, it is ridiculous.

I'll ask DLH again. How does god's words in the bible guide your daily life? Your relations with fellow human beings?

Should gays be put to death? Fornication? How about a few details of yr absolute morality?

Or are you one of those bible quoting hypocrites Jesus called out?

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

But that doesn’t mean their moral reasoning is just borrowed from religion.

So many words in that response, and so many errors in those many words. I will limit myself to addressing just a few.

There is nothing in what I wrote from which a well-reasoning person would conclude that it was claimed that the Dawkins and Harris “moral reasoning is just borrowed from religion.” Do even Dawkins and/or Harris assert that they were utterly unaffected by religion or only negatively affected by the moralities associated with religion? To do so would be either: 1) daft, or 2) revelatory of an astonishing sort of ignorance regarding both religion and human being.

The claim here amounts to saying, “They live in a moral culture, so their morality must come from religion,” ...

Nope. Not even close. The expectation is that they have been affected by aspects of the religion-based morality which percolated through history as their social context came to be developed. A well-reasoning person would not find that at all contentious. A well-reasoning person would stick to the words as they were written and base any objections or questions on those words as they were written.

And if moral reasoning is truly “widespread,” that suggests it’s a human trait, not a divinely exclusive one.

Duh. That is what the alleged property referred to as sensus divinatis and fitra is intended to indicate and emphasize. But maybe with the logorrhea you lost the sense of the context. You had said:

... those who do not believe in God should have no ability to reason morally. Yet, we see that they do.

In context, the point was that belief in God is not even necessary to be able to reason morally given the alleged sensus divinatis, fitra, enthusiasm, or any other terminology referring to or describing the supposed property.

When/if you understand this, you will also realize that this perspective is not to be confused for the reciprocity typical of intersubjectivity, and it is also not mere altruism.

The idea that morality is an “indeterminate matter” requiring continual reinvention is not a defense of theism ...

Uh, the necessity of creativity and re-creation was not intended as "a defense". It is merely the noting of a particular matter which is necessary for moral being.

—it is a concession to humanism.

No. It is merely the noting of a particular matter which is necessary for moral being.

 

[DLH]

The idea the bible represents an absolute morality is not just indefensible, it is ridiculous.

I would have to think about that. Since it is the imperfect fallible translation of the perfect infallible word of Jehovah God it may be, at least on the surface, somewhat true, but then again maybe not. I would unreluctantly say offhand that it is the closest thing we have to it.

I would most likely instinctively respond to such a statement by saying absolute morality doesn't exist because it is subjective. While I would myself personally only attribute absolute morality to the creator, sovereign Lord Jehovah God, other cultures and individuals would disagree.

I'll ask DLH again. How does god's words in the bible guide your daily life?

The answer to that would take a great deal of time, it isn't relevant and none of your business. That's between me and Jehovah.

Your relations with fellow human beings?

I constantly remind myself that all sin comes from the same source and if I would beg forgiveness, I wouldn't presume to pass judgment on anyone else.

Should gays be put to death?

Absolutely not, fortunately for me; I am personally grateful for that.

Fornication?

No thanks.

How about a few details of yr absolute morality?

Being of the same mind and considering my response to the subject above I would quote Christ Jesus, the greatest man who ever lived: “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God." (Mark 10:18 NKJV) I would also add that good and bad are subjective.

Or are you one of those bible quoting hypocrites Jesus called out?

I'm not that old, but if I were I don't think I would have been. I would have far more likely been likened to the tax collector in Jesus' parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector at Luke 18:9-14.

 

[steve_bank]

Well there you are DLH.

If you believe in Yahweh and the bible is the words of god then how you act in your life based on that belief is what matters.

Saying that is irrelevant is saying you don’t have any idea how to answer, and that may indicate you are just a fraud attacking atheists.

In modern legal terms the rules in Leviticus are ‘black letter law’, there is no interpretation.

So, should gays be killed and suppressed? Fornication? Divorce? Eating pork? Working on the holy day?

Saying the interpretation is flawed by flawed humans is to say the bible is meaningless.

Modern Christians say Jesus ended the old old mosaic covenant with god and began a new testament or covenant with god for all of humanity. The old biblical rules don’t apply, except for the ones they choose. Like ho sexuality.

In contrast Buddhism has a clear definition of the rules of behavior required to be Buddhist, the 8 Fold Path and the 5 guidelines. A moral code.

Noble Eightfold Path - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Fifth Precept: Refrain from Intoxicants

The fifth of the five precepts—Buddhist guidelines for an ethical life—is to refrain from using intoxicants, which are said to cause carelessness.

tricycle.org

Drugs, alcohol, and fornication are out. As is hurtful speech.

 

[NoHolyCows]

But that doesn’t mean their moral reasoning is just borrowed from religion.

So many words in that response, and so many errors in those many words. I will limit myself to addressing just a few.

There is nothing in what I wrote from which a well-reasoning person would conclude that it was claimed that the Dawkins and Harris “moral reasoning is just borrowed from religion.” Do even Dawkins and/or Harris assert that they were utterly unaffected by religion or only negatively affected by the moralities associated with religion? To do so would be either: 1) daft, or 2) revelatory of an astonishing sort of ignorance regarding both religion and human being.

The claim here amounts to saying, “They live in a moral culture, so their morality must come from religion,” ...

Nope. Not even close. The expectation is that they have been affected by aspects of the religion-based morality which percolated through history as their social context came to be developed. A well-reasoning person would not find that at all contentious. A well-reasoning person would stick to the words as they were written and base any objections or questions on those words as they were written.

And if moral reasoning is truly “widespread,” that suggests it’s a human trait, not a divinely exclusive one.

Duh. That is what the alleged property referred to as sensus divinatis and fitra is intended to indicate and emphasize. But maybe with the logorrhea you lost the sense of the context. You had said:

... those who do not believe in God should have no ability to reason morally. Yet, we see that they do.

In context, the point was that belief in God is not even necessary to be able to reason morally given the alleged sensus divinatis, fitra, enthusiasm, or any other terminology referring to or describing the supposed property.

When/if you understand this, you will also realize that this perspective is not to be confused for the reciprocity typical of intersubjectivity, and it is also not mere altruism.

The idea that morality is an “indeterminate matter” requiring continual reinvention is not a defense of theism ...

Uh, the necessity of creativity and re-creation was not intended as "a defense". It is merely the noting of a particular matter which is necessary for moral being.

—it is a concession to humanism.

No. It is merely the noting of a particular matter which is necessary for moral

The sarcastic tone and binary insult—“daft” or “astonishingly ignorant”—is a poor substitute for substance. No one claimed that Dawkins or Harris were “utterly unaffected” by religion. The claim was never that their moral reasoning is just borrowed from religion, but rather that your language implied dependence, not just influence. That implication needed to be clarified.

Being born in a religiously shaped culture doesn’t entail that one’s ethics are built on religion. Dawkins, Harris, and many others explicitly reject religious moral foundations—not because they’re ignorant of them, but because they’ve reasoned through them. And secular moral systems often contradict religious norms, not borrow from them. Consider that modern secular reasoning led the moral opposition to slavery, the advancement of women’s rights, and the affirmation of LGBTQ+ dignity—often while religious institutions resisted those very changes.

So yes, moral thought is shaped by cultural context. That includes religion, but it doesn’t mean morality is inherited from it. Influence is not foundation, and your accusation of ignorance reveals less about my position and more about your discomfort with its implications.

You’ve again affirmed cultural influence, not epistemic dependence. That’s not contentious, and no one claimed otherwise. What’s contentious is the leap from percolation to authority—as if being raised in a culture where religion once dominated makes moral reasoning indebted to it forever. That’s not how moral progress works.

Let’s take a practical example. The Christian tradition, for centuries, upheld slavery using scripture. Secular reasoning—not theology—led to its eventual moral rejection. Were those abolitionists shaped by religious language? Perhaps. But their arguments for freedom, equality, and dignity came not from divine command, but from reasoned appeals to shared humanity.

Ideas can travel through history without being tethered to their original frame. A value once housed in religion can survive on its own merits—or be discarded if it cannot. The key point is this: secular morality stands or falls on logic, empathy, and consequence—not tradition.

The dig about “logorrhea” is noted, but let’s not confuse verbosity with precision. If your point about sensus divinitatis or fitra is that all humans possess a divinely-installed moral compass, that’s a theological assertion, not a demonstration. You’re assigning a divine label to something that’s already accounted for by natural mechanisms.

Humans exhibit moral instincts because we evolved as social beings. Altruism, fairness, and empathy are biologically rooted traits that enhance survival and group cohesion. We see precursors of these traits in infants, secular individuals, and social animals, all without belief in God. So the presence of moral reasoning doesn’t prove divine imprint—it proves evolutionary necessity.

To invoke a metaphysical explanation where a natural one fully suffices violates Occam’s Razor. Naming morality “divinely implanted” doesn’t explain it—it just moves the question backward without resolution.

If belief isn’t necessary, then the source of morality is irrelevant to belief. That’s exactly the point I made. You’re describing a moral faculty that operates independently of faith, and then claiming it’s divine in nature—without any way to verify or distinguish it from a natural trait. That’s not an explanation. It’s semantic camouflage.

You also attempt to distance this moral sense from intersubjective empathy and altruism, but on what basis? Empathy and reciprocity are observable, testable, and explain the same moral behaviors you attribute to divine imprint. They are not shallow instincts; they are evolved social intelligences—deep, adaptive mechanisms for navigating moral life.

If your divine property leads to the same outcomes, is indistinguishable in function, and requires belief in no deity to operate, then Occam’s Razor once again points us toward the simpler, naturalistic answer. You’re dressing human morality in theological robes and calling it transcendent. It isn’t. It’s beautifully and powerfully human.

Noted—but whether intended as a defense or not, you’ve acknowledged that morality is not fixed. If it must be “re-created” continually, then it is clearly not timeless, static, or outside human interpretation.

Objective truths—like mathematical axioms or the laws of physics—don’t require creativity to be applied. They are constants. The fact that moral ideas must be reimagined, refined, and re-applied depending on context is strong evidence that morality is a human endeavor, not a divine blueprint.

There’s nothing wrong with morality evolving. That’s what makes it effective. The problem is claiming it’s rooted in an absolute divine order while also admitting it’s in flux. That’s not just a contradiction—it’s a quiet confirmation of secular ethics.

Yes—and that “particular matter,” once again, is human creativity, development, and judgment. All of which supports the secular account of morality. When moral knowledge is formed through experience, revisited in light of suffering, and guided by reason—it becomes human-centered, not transcendent.

The difference is not in who’s “noting” the process. The difference is in who’s honest about what it means. You’ve described morality as non-static, interpretive, adaptive, and requiring our continued engagement. That’s exactly the secular view.

There’s no shame in affirming morality as a human achievement. In fact, there’s power in knowing that we are the authors of our own ethical progress, capable of reflection, error, and growth. That’s not relativism. That’s responsibility.

NHC

 

[DLH]

Well there you are DLH.

Here we are, SB. You and I.

If you believe in Yahweh and the bible is the words of god then how you act in your life based on that belief is what matters.

To me and to Jehovah. Not to you. Neither put me on a pedestal nor take me down one devised in your own mind for your own purpose. Or look silly. You want to blow off steam? Fine. I look at that like a declawed kitten batting at me. I may respond in kind for fun, but I don't take it seriously. I would much rather you criticize the Bible than my beliefs. What I believe doesn't matter in the long run. You can assume that I'm a hypocrite of Biblical proportions, but that wouldn't change what the Bible says. I don't recommend any religion to anyone and I don't discuss the Bible for the purpose of indoctrination or conversion. Think about it. If I were doing that my interactions with the unwashed heathens would be much more . . . . serious? Humble?

Saying that is irrelevant is saying you don’t have any idea how to answer, and that may indicate you are just a fraud attacking atheists.

I'm not attacking atheists; I'm sparring with them. We have not locked swords, [he said, barely maintaining a straight face], we have locked shields.

In modern legal terms the rules in Leviticus are ‘black letter law’, there is no interpretation.

I'll have to look that up. I'm not familiar with the vernacular. Hmm. Black Letter Law. Never heard of that. See? You're not completely useless!

Some advice: Don't hold me accountable to modern-day apostate Christendom, and don't hold me accountable in ignorance of Biblical Law, which is somewhat redundant but, well, then, while we're at it best not hold me accountable to grammatical laws as well. In fact, unless you are judge and jury just don't. It'll save you a great deal of time and effort. Trust me, I speak from personal experience when I used to do the same thing but with much more effort and - well, not seriousness but - zeal? Don't be a zealous ideologue idiot, Mr. Banks.

The article of Biblical Law will acquaint you with the subject so you can more effectively criticize my intentions. I highly recommend it, for my own sake as well as yours.

So, should gays be killed and suppressed?

Absolutely not. Like I said, I am one myself. I once posted on Sam Harris' Project Reason briefly as a contributor by invitation of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible's Steve Wells whose forum I was a regular on for a long time (that's a long and weird story) but also in this specific reference the project's new forum. I had posted a few articles on the Project Reason website, and had gone to the forum to discuss those.

There was a typical atheist idiot posting there who brought it upon himself to announce, in all uppercase subject headings, on the public forum, that I as a Bible thumper was homophobic. Multiple posts overnight. Oh, the horror! When I explained to him that I was homosexual he did the same thing again, only this time the subject heading in all uppercase announced that I was a fag and queer, etc.

I think that was my first introduction to dumbass atheist ideological fixation. Before I even knew that such a term existed.

Anyway, when I told the Presiding Overseer of the congregation of JWs I studied with when I first discovered the Bible that I was gay, he had no problem with it and welcomed me, offering support. Their policy, as well as my own to this day, was what Paul laid out at 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

Now, I was only 27 at the time. I had to choose Jehovah or homosexuality. I chose the latter. Years later, as I got older, I changed that, but I had no illusions of my accountability. I knew I was choosing one over the other. Homosexual promiscuity led me down some dark alleyways, figuratively and literally. The irony is that as an atheist I had been much more morally righteous. After becoming a believer, it was drugs, alcohol, and all sorts of sordid details I will spare our intrepid readers probably not reading this even as we speak.

So, my position on homosexuality is summed up as tolerance. The Christian congregation has the right to prohibit it only within their confines, and the unbeliever's rights should likewise be respected. I'm still gay, just not practicing. Not participating in that lifestyle.

Fornication? Divorce? Eating pork? Working on the holy day?

Are you testing me on Christian law or just digging around in my trash like some Trump deranged psychopath? The Law of Moses wasn't binding to Christians after Jesus sacrifice. The Bible was written to the people in the place and time it was written. Adam's law differed from Moses' law, the law of angels, Christian law. I love me some ham and pork chops. Bacon and sausage . . . hmmm? Oh, yeah. As James said when referring to Sodom and Gomorrah, it served as an example to them. They weren't looking to the sky for raining fire.

Saying the interpretation is flawed by flawed humans is to say the bible is meaningless.

Oh, well, then you better find something else to do with your time.

Modern Christians say Jesus ended the old old mosaic covenant with god and began a new testament or covenant with god for all of humanity. The old biblical rules don’t apply, except for the ones they choose. Like ho sexuality.

Well, adultery would take care of most of the sexual stuff. Anyway, they are free to choose as long as they stay within the guidelines of the Christian Greek scripture. The apostles voted on stuff. There was some disagreement from time to time as with circumcision.

Look, the thing that I find so amusing about all of that is it lays bare the blatant dumbass stupidity or modern-day Christianity and atheism as the same phony stupid shit. The two groups of ideologues are fighting it out. Just different sides of the same coin. It's like politics being a distraction for stupid people. Giving you the illusion of choice.

You're only a pawn in the game.

In contrast Buddhism has a clear definition of the rules of behavior required to be Buddhist, the 8 Fold Path and the 5 guidelines. A moral code.

Noble Eightfold Path - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Fifth Precept: Refrain from Intoxicants

The fifth of the five precepts—Buddhist guidelines for an ethical life—is to refrain from using intoxicants, which are said to cause carelessness.

tricycle.org

Drugs, alcohol, and fornication are out. As is hurtful speech.

Sure. If someone come to me and told me that they were thinking of Buddhism instead of the Bible, I would wish them well, but at the same time problems in Buddhism are often overlooked. Real boats rock and it isn't immune to some of the most violent clashes between sects as well as alcoholism, drug abuse etc.

Revelation In Space: Buddhism
Revelation In Space: The Four Noble Truths

 

[pood]

Well there you are DLH.

Here we are, SB. You and I.

If you believe in Yahweh and the bible is the words of god then how you act in your life based on that belief is what matters.

To me and to Jehovah. Not to you. Neither put me on a pedestal nor take me down one devised in your own mind for your own purpose. Or look silly. You want to blow off steam? Fine. I look at that like a declawed kitten batting at me. I may respond in kind for fun, but I don't take it seriously. I would much rather you criticize the Bible than my beliefs. What I believe doesn't matter in the long run. You can assume that I'm a hypocrite of Biblical proportions, but that wouldn't change what the Bible says. I don't recommend any religion to anyone and I don't discuss the Bible for the purpose of indoctrination or conversion. Think about it. If I were doing that my interactions with the unwashed heathens would be much more . . . . serious? Humble?

Saying that is irrelevant is saying you don’t have any idea how to answer, and that may indicate you are just a fraud attacking atheists.

I'm not attacking atheists; I'm sparring with them. We have not locked swords, [he said, barely maintaining a straight face], we have locked shields.

In modern legal terms the rules in Leviticus are ‘black letter law’, there is no interpretation.

I'll have to look that up. I'm not familiar with the vernacular. Hmm. Black Letter Law. Never heard of that. See? You're not completely useless!

Some advice: Don't hold me accountable to modern-day apostate Christendom, and don't hold me accountable in ignorance of Biblical Law, which is somewhat redundant but, well, then, while we're at it best not hold me accountable to grammatical laws as well. In fact, unless you are judge and jury just don't. It'll save you a great deal of time and effort. Trust me, I speak from personal experience when I used to do the same thing but with much more effort and - well, not seriousness but - zeal? Don't be a zealous ideologue idiot, Mr. Banks.

The article of Biblical Law will acquaint you with the subject so you can more effectively criticize my intentions. I highly recommend it, for my own sake as well as yours. It's much more rewarding when the sonofabitch going after me has at least a clue of what he's talking about!

Goddamnit!

So, should gays be killed and suppressed?

Absolutely not. Like I said, I am one myself. I once posted on Sam Harris' Project Reason briefly as a contributor by invitation of the Skeptic's Annotated Bible's Steve Wells whose forum I was a regular on for a long time (that's a long and weird story) but also in this specific reference the project's new forum. I had posted a few articles on the Project Reason website, and had gone to the forum to discuss those.

There was a typical atheist idiot posting there who brought it upon himself to announce, in all uppercase subject headings, on the public forum, that I as a Bible thumper was homophobic. Multiple posts overnight. Oh, the horror! When I explained to him that I was homosexual he did the same thing again, only this time the subject heading in all uppercase announced that I was a fag and queer, etc.

I think that was my first introduction to dumbass atheist ideological fixation. Before I even knew that such a term existed.

Anyway, when I told the Presiding Overseer of the congregation of JWs I studied with when I first discovered the Bible that I was gay, he had no problem with it and welcomed me, offering support. Their policy, as well as my own to this day, was what Paul laid out at 1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

Now, I was only 27 when at the time. I had to choose Jehovah or homosexuality. I chose the latter. Years later, as I got older, I changed that, but I had no illusions of my accountability. I knew I was choosing one over the other. Homosexual promiscuity led me down some dark alleyways, figuratively and literally. The irony is that as an atheist I had been much more morally righteous. Drugs, alcohol, and all sorts of sordid details I will spare our intrepid readers probably not reading this even as we speak.

So, my position on homosexuality is summed up as tolerance. The Christian congregation has the right to prohibit it only within their confines, and the unbeliever's rights should likewise be respected. I'm still gay, just not practicing. Not participating in that lifestyle.

Fornication? Divorce? Eating pork? Working on the holy day?

Are you testing me on Christian law or just digging around in my trash like some Trump deranged psychopath? The Law of Moses wasn't binding to Christians after Jesus sacrifice. The Bible was written to the people in the place and time it was written. Adam's law differed from Moses' law, the law of angels, Christian law. I love me some ham and pork chops. Bacon and sausage . . . hmmm? Oh, yeah. As James said when referring to Sodom and Gomorrah, it served as an example to them. They weren't looking to the sky for raining fire.

Saying the interpretation is flawed by flawed humans is to say the bible is meaningless.

Oh, well, then you better find something else to do with your time.

Modern Christians say Jesus ended the old old mosaic covenant with god and began a new testament or covenant with god for all of humanity. The old biblical rules don’t apply, except for the ones they choose. Like ho sexuality.

Well, adultery would take care of most of the sexual stuff. Anyway, they are free to choose as long as they stay within the guidelines of the Christian Greek scripture. The apostles voted on stuff. There was some disagreement from time to time as with circumcision.

Look, the thing that I find so amusing about all of that is it lays bare the blatant dumbass stupidity or modern-day Christianity and atheism as the same phony stupid shit. The two groups of ideologues are fighting it out. Just different sides of the same coin. It's like politics being a distraction for stupid people. Giving you the illusion of choice.

You're only a pawn in the game.

In contrast Buddhism has a clear definition of the rules of behavior required to be Buddhist, the 8 Fold Path and the 5 guidelines. A moral code.

Noble Eightfold Path - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Fifth Precept: Refrain from Intoxicants

The fifth of the five precepts—Buddhist guidelines for an ethical life—is to refrain from using intoxicants, which are said to cause carelessness.

tricycle.org

Drugs, alcohol, and fornication are out. As is hurtful speech.

Sure. If someone come to me and told me that they were thinking of Buddhism instead of the Bible, I would wish them well, but at the same time Buddhism often overlooked. Real boats rock and it isn't immune to some of the most violent clashes between sects as well as alcoholism, drug abuse etc.

Revelation In Space: Buddhism
Revelation In Space: The Four Noble Truths

The above is swarming with obnoxious insults. Rather the norm for self-righteous religious zealots.

 

[steve_bank]

Bob Dylan? The Dylan cultural prophet myth, actual ya good analogy to a mythical biblical prophet. Lie Jesus.

Interpreting Dylan is like interpreter the bible. Books and PHD theses were written on his songs. In a documentary he was in a room with Joan Baez. He was typing at a typewriter saying ‘these words are going to drive people crazy’. He said on camera meaning of his songs were up to people, and tat he was no prophet.

He stared out imitating Woody Guthrie.

The counter couture turned him into a prophet. At a Newport Folk Festal he showed up with a backup band and used an electric guitar. His followers were stunned and upset.


Dylan was an entertainer who got rich selling an image, hardly a counter culture anti system prophet. On the other hand others like Pete Seeger were activists. Songs with meaning and intent.

Same with the Rolling Stones. They got rich selling the counter culture rebel image. Jagger is and was a hard core capitalist.

Likewise people like you turn ancient Jews and writings into a myth that never was.

\My question remains, if the bible represents the words of a god you believe in how do you live in acco0rdance with the words of god? Most Christians will have an answer of some kind.

How do you express in daily life your biblical morality?

Personally I never liked Dylan or his music. His real name is Robert Allen Zimmerman.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

The sarcastic tone and binary insult—“daft” or “astonishingly ignorant”—is a poor substitute for substance. No one claimed that Dawkins or Harris were “utterly unaffected” by religion.

Again with so many misleading words.

If no one (including you) claims "that Dawkins or Harris were 'utterly unaffected' by religion", then you agree with the substance of the statement that "to assert that they were utterly unaffected by religion or only negatively affected by the moralities associated with religion ... would be either: 1) daft, or 2) revelatory of an astonishing sort of ignorance regarding both religion and human being." You do not like the tone, but it is not sarcastic. Is it insulting? Certainly not to the "no one" who makes what would be the daft and/or ignorant claim.

Dawkins, Harris, and many others explicitly reject religious moral foundations—not because they’re ignorant of them, but because they’ve reasoned through them.

Are you sure about that? Specify the supposed foundations so that the matter of whether you or they or others have exhausted the possibilities can be analyzed. Actually, you do not need to, because I know how they limited their reasoning. The "specify" remark is really just a way to note that you repeatedly evidence a sort of logic blindspot which follows from insufficient appreciation of possibilities. That is meant as nothing other than a constructive critique regarding your approach/perspective.

What’s contentious is the leap from percolation to authority ...

Why are you so intent on being misleading and on misrepresenting? Cite the words which necessarily lead from "percolated through history" to whatever you mean by "authority". You can't do it, because there was no such leap. You are making it up. Oh, well. I reckon I am just supposed to think that such is your way of being. However, I prefer not to think that.

Naming morality “divinely implanted” doesn’t explain it—it just moves the question backward without resolution.

First of all, with regards to the matter of "resolution", your just so story about the evolution of morality is not a resolution. No just so story is a resolution. It is, instead, a story that is possibly true. Oh, and just to increase (however slightly) the possibility of you not mis-taking, I like that familiar just so story. But it is not enough. Not because it does not include God or whatever. No, it does not go far enough because I have yet to encounter anyone who takes satisfaction from that just so story and who also ever gives a more substantial description to the sense of moral being. Is moral being identical to social being?

With regards to the “divinely implanted” as an explanation, a well-reasoning mind would have recognized the posited sense to have been put forth as a possible truth rather than as an explanation. Go back and look at the context, and recognize that what was presented is a possibility for which you had not - and still have not - accounted. You do have a just so story for the evolution of morality, but that does not dispense with the presented possibility. Why? You seem to think Occam's Razor is something of substance, and you almost seem to recognize what you have had to assume in order to wield that razor: "If your divine property leads to the same outcomes". Well, your wording is not quite right. In any event, for your edification, it is to be noted that what you call a "divine property" is not sufficient for any particular outcome(s). Nevertheless, you invoke the empathy, intersubjectivity, and altruism attributes, but you only assume that is sufficient for concluding that the outcomes are (essentially) the same.

Anyhow, the context for which bringing up the logical (and metaphysical) possibility which you had not considered was your remark, "... argument contradicts itself. If morality is entirely dependent on God ...". You failed to consider how that "entirely dependent" condition might not be necessarily representative of theism or even what you call "religious moral foundations".

You see, your logic, your reasoning is lacking. But it is plenty good enough for your apologetics. By the way, Occam's Razor is a favorite apologetics tool and tell. It is typically a stand-in for an analysis which never occurs.

Objective truths—like mathematical axioms or the laws of physics—don’t require creativity to be applied.

But creativity is absolutely necessary to recognize such "laws" and to develop manners of expression for such "laws" and to effect progress.

They are constants.

But constants in and of themselves are useless. Their value derives from creative application. Do you really imagine that the same cannot be done with morality issues?!

The fact that moral ideas must be reimagined, refined, and re-applied depending on context is strong evidence that morality is a human endeavor, not a divine blueprint.

Your logic imagination is very limited. That often results in insufficient (self-)analysis of your own statements. Whatever is this "divine blueprint" to which you refer, and whatever is supposed to be the relationship between your "constants" and your "blueprint", there is no - and you do not even begin to demonstrate any - inherent incompatibility between human endeavor and creativity in the development or manifestation of morality and "a divine" - with or without a blueprint.

Beyond that, even if what you call "secular ethics" is identical in all ways to a religion-based ethics (other than the religion basis, of course), that neither contradicts nor negates what you refer to as "divine". On the other hand, if what you call "secular ethics" were to somehow necessarily include a disavowal of the possibility of "a divine", then the two ethics would indeed be incompatible, but even then the religion-based ethics would not provide a "confirmation of secular ethics."

 

[steve_bank]

Chimps have social norms. I don't know if it is universal, in some chimp groups a chimp's social status is determined by the birth mother.

WE like to think we are separate and apart form the rest of ecosystem, whine we are shown we are not by for example COVID.

Witness Ukraine and Gaza, and other areas in the world. Our congress and its destructive conflicts.

Morality is a tool to maintain social order. Romans considered religion essential to order.

The 10 Commandments.

Don't steal or commit adultery or bear false witness. Monogamy reduces male conflict. That it was claimed to be given by god to Moses is a way of establishing authority.

 

[NoHolyCows]

Michael S. Pearl,​

You attempt to shield your insult by pretending it’s just logic, but this is a false dichotomy. No one claimed that Dawkins or Harris were “utterly unaffected” by religion, and trying to trap the argument in that straw man reveals more about your tactics than your reasoning.

Being influenced by culture is universal; it does not mean moral reasoning is derived from or dependent on religion. Exposure is not the same as endorsement. Rejecting religious morality after critical examination isn’t ignorance—it’s progress. Suggesting otherwise is a rhetorical bluff wrapped in condescension.

You ask for clarification, then undercut the request by claiming omniscient insight into others’ limitations—without giving any evidence of what those limitations are. That’s not constructive critique; it’s posturing.

Let’s be specific: religious moral foundations generally include divine command theory, scriptural authority, original sin, and teleological ethics. These have all been examined and rejected by secular thinkers not due to ignorance, but due to philosophical inconsistency and moral incoherence. If you believe something vital was overlooked, state it clearly. Otherwise, this is just veiled dismissal.

You claim misrepresentation, yet cite no specific instance. In philosophy, implications matter. If you assert that religious morality “percolated through history” into modern ethical reasoning in a conversation about moral legitimacy, you’re implying some enduring significance—or authority—unless explicitly stated otherwise.

If your point was only historical, it was a tangent. If normative, then yes, you’re implying modern ethics owes religious ethics a foundational debt. The inference wasn’t a distortion—it was a fair reading based on your framing. Accusing someone of dishonesty instead of clarifying your meaning is not philosophical rigor—it’s evasion.

Calling the evolutionary framework a “just-so story” is an outdated and dismissive move. Evolutionary morality is supported by behavioral psychology, neuroscience, game theory, and cross-species studies. It explains cooperation, empathy, and fairness without invoking metaphysics.

Your dissatisfaction is personal, not philosophical. That no one you’ve met “takes satisfaction” in it is not an argument against its validity. It may not offer mystical transcendence, but it offers explanatory clarity.

As for your question: yes, moral being is deeply tied to social being. Morality evolved because humans are social creatures who need to cooperate. If you believe in a moral essence detached from social context, name it, define it, and explain why it’s necessary. Otherwise, your dissatisfaction is just a preference for mystery.

You keep defending the divine claim by demoting it to “possibility”—but possibility alone doesn’t demand acceptance. Many things are possible. The relevant question is: is it necessary? Does your “divinely implanted” moral sense explain anything that secular models can’t?

You provide no mechanism, no predictive edge, and no unique insight. Calling something “a possible truth” does not shield it from scrutiny. Philosophy demands more than imagined alternatives—it demands reasons to prefer one model over another. You’ve offered none.

Occam’s Razor is a methodological tool, not a belief system. If two explanations account for the same outcomes, the one with fewer assumptions is preferred. You have not shown that divine morality leads to better outcomes—or any different outcomes at all.

You attempt to undermine my use of the Razor by implying I’m unaware of my assumptions, but you don’t name them. The secular account rests on demonstrable human cognitive capacities: empathy, cooperation, reciprocity. The divine account rests on unverifiable metaphysics. Only one model is parsimonious, and it isn’t yours.

If your “divine property” does not produce predictable outcomes, then what good is it? You admit it isn’t sufficient, yet you treat it as a crucial alternative explanation. That contradiction weakens your position.

On the other hand, empathy, altruism, and social reasoning do reliably produce moral behavior in both religious and secular individuals—and even in animals. That’s not an assumption. It’s supported by empirical studies in psychology and neuroscience. You’re trying to frame data-driven inference as blind faith to distract from the fact that your own framework offers no concrete predictive value.

You invoke the “logical and metaphysical possibility” of divine morality as though it refutes the point, but all it does is deflect from it. The original claim was clear: if morality is entirely dependent on God, then it follows that nonbelievers—those without access to that belief—should be incapable of moral reasoning. That is what creates the contradiction.

Instead of resolving it, you sidestepped by introducing a vaguely defined “possibility” that isn’t argued for, just floated. But in reasoned discourse, possibilities are only meaningful when supported by explanatory power. Yours isn’t. It functions only to muddy the clarity of the original point—not to answer it.

Then clarify. If theism doesn’t entail that morality is “entirely dependent” on God, what does it entail? What is God’s role in morality under your view? You’ve been evasive on this point. If your version of divine morality is not about grounding or dependency, then define its role clearly—or stop faulting others for misunderstanding your vagueness.

This is ironic. You accuse me of apologetics while defending a metaphysical model that can’t be tested, doesn’t predict, and has no explanatory necessity. You use words like “possibility,” “insufficient imagination,” and “blindspot,” but you present no argument with structure or force.

Occam’s Razor isn’t a tool of apologetics—it’s a filter for unnecessary ideas. You’ve failed to demonstrate that divine morality is necessary for understanding moral reasoning. That’s not a blindspot on my part. That’s a blind faith on yours.

Recognition and expression require creativity. But the laws themselves—like gravity, or the structure of DNA—exist independently of that creativity. You confuse the discovery of truths with their origin.

If morality were a divine constant, it would not require cultural interpretation, evolution, and debate across time and space. The fact that morality is interpreted and evolves reveals that it is a human construct, not a divine law waiting to be unearthed.

Exactly—it can be done. That’s why morality works as a social, cultural process. The fact that we must apply and adapt moral rules depending on context shows that morality is not a fixed constant. Unlike gravity, moral codes change as our understanding and values evolve.

And that’s precisely why divine moral commands—when rigidly fixed—fail to meet the moral needs of changing societies.

That’s not analysis—it’s insult posing as insight. Accusing someone of a “limited logical imagination” without addressing the specific reasoning they presented is not critique; it’s condescension. If a claim lacks imagination, show where it fails to account for a relevant variable or possibility.

But you don’t do that. You substitute vague superiority for argument. In fact, what you label as limited logic is actually disciplined logic—a refusal to entertain unsupported metaphysical vagueness just to create the illusion of depth. In philosophy, clarity is not limitation. It’s precision.

No incompatibility is claimed. The divine hypothesis is not incompatible—it’s simply unnecessary. If secular morality explains everything your divine model explains, but without unverifiable premises, then the divine version is philosophically redundant.

The principle is not contradiction, but parsimony. You don’t need to disprove the divine to discard it. You only need to show it’s doing no explanatory work. And it isn’t.

Correct—secular ethics doesn’t contradict the divine. It simply renders it irrelevant. If the same moral conclusions can be reached without invoking a deity, then the divine hypothesis becomes dead weight. Not refuted—just replaced.

Philosophy doesn’t retain unnecessary components out of politeness. If secular ethics functions independently, then the divine premise is not needed—and in good reasoning, what is not needed is left behind.

NHC

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

You attempt to shield your insult by pretending it’s just logic

There is no pretending. By your own reasoning, I insulted "no one".

You ask for clarification, then undercut the request by claiming omniscient insight into others’ limitations—without giving any evidence of what those limitations are.

I never presented "insight into others’ limitations". I said I was aware of "how they limited their reasoning." You grossly mis-attribute. Yet again. I accept that you cannot help but misrepresent. I can ignore that feature of your being. That then leaves me to seeing whether I henceforth find anything interesting in your remarks.

Anyhow, I will give some examples of the limiting of reason. The examples regard a different topic but are convenient for me being as that they are ready-at-hand, and they are illustrative as well as useful for learning about logic/reasoning as well as rhetoric. I leave it to you to provide your own analysis regarding how the provided samples relate to limiting reasoning.

Sapolsky:

The sense of conscious intent is an irrelevant afterthought.
... consciousness is just an epiphenomenon, an illusory, reconstructive sense ...
This strikes me as ... overly dogmatic ...
Consciousness is an irrelevant hiccup.

Harris:

We do not change ourselves ... but we continually influence, and are influenced by, the world around us and the world within us.
You have not built your mind.
... thoughts simply arise unauthored and yet author our actions.
Becoming sensitive to the background causes of one's thoughts and feelings can ... allow for greater creative control over one's life.
Getting behind our conscious thoughts and feelings can allow us to steer a more intelligent course through our lives (while knowing, of course, that we are ultimately being steered).

In philosophy, implications matter. If you assert that religious morality “percolated through history” into modern ethical reasoning in a conversation about moral legitimacy, you’re implying some enduring significance—or authority—unless explicitly stated otherwise.

I can allow for your interpretation to be regarded as an alleged implication and, thereby, possibly the case. But, owing to a deficiency in your logic imagination/understanding, you failed to consider that the percolation could simply indicate a factor. Your "authority" is logically unnecessary. Your remarks are unjustified.

Here's a possibility for your consideration: Developing the ability for identifying possibilities is dependent on charity.

Calling the evolutionary framework a “just-so story” is an outdated and dismissive move. Evolutionary morality is supported by behavioral psychology, neuroscience, game theory, and cross-species studies. It explains ...

Sheesh. As explicitly expected, you mis-took. Outdated? Okay, so in addition to you (congenitally?) mis-representing, you are a philosophical neophyte? Ugh. Useful realization. Anyhow, it is neither outdated nor dismissive. I already told you it was a good story. The story is simply insufficient. To say that the story is "supported by" and "explains" does not establish that they are not insufficient.

Philosophy demands more than imagined alternatives—it demands reasons to prefer one model over another. You’ve offered none.

But, you see, thinking in terms of possibilities is the very manifestation of philosophy (and, for that matter, any thinking concerned with discovery or problem-solving). It is only by thinking in terms of possibilities that biases and prejudices are discovered. It is only by thinking in terms of possibilities that perspective is broadened or otherwise altered. Thinking in terms of possibilities is frequently dependent on charity. Maybe it is because you downplay the importance of possibilities that you appear to be unwilling or incapable of effecting charity. It is that lack of apparent charity which contributes to it seeming that you are doing apologetics more so than philosophy.

Oh, and as to my not having offered you a model to prefer over your current preference - well, I think I have given you reason to prefer possibilities and charity. But enough of all that. Let's wrap this up.

As for your question: yes, moral being is deeply tied to social being.

No no no. The questions was "Is moral being identical to social being?" I did not ask whether moral being and social being were at all connected. It is relevant to some of your other remarks if they are not identical.

Let’s be specific: religious moral foundations generally include divine command theory, scriptural authority, original sin, and teleological ethics. These have all been examined and rejected by secular thinkers not due to ignorance, but due to philosophical inconsistency and moral incoherence. If you believe something vital was overlooked, state it clearly.

I am going to re-cite a couple of quotations I recently posted in some other thread(s). Are you able to see how they relate to matters of morality/ethics? If not, that is sufficient for this discussion. On the other hand, if you do see that they relate, do you think either or both of those cited statements necessarily lead to that "philosophical inconsistency and moral incoherence" to which you refer? Do they even fall readily within your listed "foundations" categories?

Rabia of Basra, addressing God:

If I adore You out of fear of Hell, burn me in Hell!
If I adore you out of desire for Paradise,
Lock me out of Paradise.

Emmanuel Levinas:

Faith is not a question of the existence or non-existence of God. It is believing that love without reward is valuable.

 

[NoHolyCows]

Micheal S Pearl,

That’s not a defense; it’s a dodge. The issue isn’t whether your wording technically insults “someone,” but whether the rhetorical structure you employed functions to frame dissent as either stupidity or ignorance. That’s not analysis—it’s preemptive dismissal.

You didn’t build a logical distinction; you constructed a trap: disagree, and you’re either daft or uninformed. The fact that “no one” was directly insulted is irrelevant when the structure itself is crafted to delegitimize dissent before it begins. It’s not clarity—it’s control.

This is a semantic sleight-of-hand. Claiming “awareness of how someone limited their reasoning” is, by any meaningful measure, a claim to insight about their cognitive process. You can rename it, but you can’t redefine the implication.

You assert limitation but offer no demonstration of where or how. Without specifics, it’s just an unsupported claim to superior perspective—a rhetorical flourish masquerading as critique. And accusing misattribution, while offering no clarification, is not correction—it’s dismissal.

You’ve changed the subject. Quoting views on determinism or consciousness does not invalidate their moral reasoning unless you show an internal contradiction between their metaphysics and their ethics—which you haven’t.

Sapolsky and Harris may reject libertarian free will, but their ethical frameworks remain coherent within determinism. Your argument here is a non sequitur: you’ve presented a shift in topic, not a flaw in logic.

You can’t have it both ways. You say my reading is plausible, but fault me for not selecting your unspoken intention. That’s not a failure of logic—that’s a failure of communication.

When you raise “percolation” in a context discussing moral legitimacy, and don’t explicitly qualify it as historical rather than normative, the implication of relevance—if not authority—is entirely fair. Responsibility for disambiguation lies with the one implying, not the one interpreting.

Charity matters—but clarity matters more. Possibilities are only valuable if they’re coherent, defined, and capable of doing explanatory work. You’ve presented divine morality as a “possibility,” but provided no mechanism, no structure, and no comparative advantage.

Charity can earn a second look—not a free pass. Undefined claims, no matter how generously framed, still demand substance.

Calling something “insufficient” without specifying what it fails to explain is not argument—it’s aesthetic preference.

Evolutionary ethics is supported by neuroscience, behavioral studies, and game theory. It explains empathy, reciprocity, altruism, and punishment without appealing to untestable metaphysics. If you believe something vital is missing, you must name it—and show how divine morality accounts for it better.

Until then, your claim of insufficiency lacks substance. It signals dissatisfaction, not diagnosis.

Possibility is the beginning of philosophy—not its end. What follows is evaluation: Which possibilities are coherent? Which are useful? Which explain more while assuming less?

What you’ve presented isn’t a rival framework. It’s an undeveloped alternative, cloaked in suggestion. That’s not suppressed possibility—it’s lack of follow-through.

Demanding coherence and accountability for ideas is not apologetics—it’s intellectual integrity.

Fair point. Then let’s be precise: No, they are not identical—but they are inseparable.

Morality arises in social organisms because it addresses coordination, fairness, harm, and empathy—features of social life. There is no known instance of moral reasoning that occurs in isolation from the social dimension. If you claim moral being transcends the social, define what it is, how it manifests, and why it’s necessary.

Otherwise, the distinction is technically valid but functionally empty.

Yes—they absolutely relate. But not in the way you seem to think.

Both quotes from Rabia and Levinas express profound moral intuitions—but precisely because they reject the foundations I named (like divine command theory, reward-based obedience, or teleological ethics). In fact, they highlight the incoherence of those very systems by contrasting them with a more self-contained, internally consistent moral impulse.

Let’s be specific:

Her famous prayer:

“If I adore You out of fear of Hell, burn me in Hell. If I adore You out of desire for Paradise, lock me out of Paradise.”

This is not a defense of moral obligation coming from God’s command or threat. It’s a rejection of obedience based on divine reward or punishment—which undermines the standard theistic foundation of morality. What Rabia is articulating is internal moral devotion—a kind of love that transcends external consequences, even divine ones. That aligns far more with secular virtue ethics than with the idea that morality is only valid if commanded by God.

“Faith is not a question of the existence or non-existence of God. It is believing that love without reward is valuable.”

This, again, doesn’t defend morality as grounded in divine authority. In fact, it brackets God’s existence entirely and instead affirms a human-centered ethical principle: that love without expectation of reward is valuable. That’s exactly what secular ethics argues.

So Levinas, while religious, is offering here an ethical vision independent of metaphysics. His entire ethical framework is about theface-to-face responsibility to the other, which precedes theology, law, or divine authority.

You likely quoted them to show that religious thinkers can express deep ethical insight—which is true. But that’s not the same as proving that those insights depend on religious foundations or that they support your argument about divine moral authority.

In fact, the content of those quotes makes the opposite case: that moral depth can transcend theological systems, and that ethical value doesn’t require divine command.

So, while Rabia and Levinas were religious, the parts you chose actually undercut the idea that divine authority is necessary for moral truth.

NHC

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

... their ethical frameworks remain coherent within determinism.

But determinism is incoherent with regards to the experience of human being. How can something be "coherent within determinism" or internally consistent and yet not cohere with the experience of human being? Here are two ways: 1) ignore, or 2) (claim to) explain away the experience of human being. I am sorry you were not able to discern from the quotes I provided that this is a common way in which reasoning is limited. I probably should have added Sapolsky's admission of his bias: "Show me a neuron (or brain) whose generation of behavior is independent of the sum of its biological parts ...". Personally, I have no problem with that bias. I understand it. The bias follows from reasons. And I guess I should have included the Harris statement where he says, "I do not chooseto choose what I choose." Harris likes to think of that remark as paradoxical. Okay. But, as an allegedly philosophical statement, it is unnecessarily deficient. Anyhow, he, too, gets to that by limiting his reasoning. He has his reasons for doing so, and I understand those reasons. Still, such limiting results in thinking that is not dispositive - which brings us to another of your remarks.

Possibility is the beginning of philosophy—not its end. What follows is evaluation: Which possibilities are coherent? Which are useful? Which explain more while assuming less?

Do you imagine an end to philosophy? I doubt you do. If some reasoning is not dispositive, do you imagine that the reasoning has freed itself from possibilities? I doubt you do. If some reasoning is not dispositive, do you imagine that its internal consistency is sufficient for disposing of all of the alternative possibilities under the purview of the reasoning? For your own sake, I hope you do not. Is a coherent, internally consistent determinism which does not cohere with the human experience of being actually useful? Even Harris admits that "For most purposes, it makes sense to ignore [what he supposes to be] the deep causes of desires and intentions ... and focus instead on the conventional outlines of the person." This is essentially the coarse-graining to which Sabine Hossenfelder refers in discussing the fact that emergent, macrophysical approaches are more useful than approaches in terms of the so-called more fundamental sub-atomic perspective.

Evolutionary ethics is supported by neuroscience, etc. ...

Morality arises in social organisms because it addresses coordination, fairness, harm, and empathy—features of social life. There is no known instance of moral reasoning that occurs in isolation from the social dimension. If you claim moral being transcends the social, define what it is, how it manifests, and why it’s necessary.

Evolutionary explanations regard populations. But the moral (which is sometimes referenced as the ethical) is not restricted to the social perspective. The morality of the individual can most certainly transcend the social as well as strictly or merely social concerns. Do you disagree? If you disagree, are you willing and capable of taking up the possibility of individuals as not merely social beings, the possibility of individuals who are not merely social beings?

Both quotes from Rabia and Levinas express profound moral intuitions—but precisely because they reject the foundations I named (like divine command theory, reward-based obedience, or teleological ethics). In fact, they highlight the incoherence of those very systems by contrasting them with a more self-contained, internally consistent moral impulse.

Yes!!! You are right! Mostly. Because it might not be so much the incoherence which they highlight as it might be the misdirected-ness of the more common way of thinking. But what you have not yet appreciated is that this is sufficient justification for you to have taken up the possibility of religion-based or God-based morality not being "entirely dependent on God". Especially in close relation to Levinas' way of thinking, moral being requires creativity. Now, if you would like to see how this relates to belief in God being unnecessary for moral being (which could in religious contexts be called Godliness or Godli(ke)ness) and yet how creativity is necessary for moral being as well as how moral being is necessary for Godliness or Godli(ke)ness, then that can be pursued as well.

In any event, this all also relates to the matter of charity and possibilities.

It can often be the case that charity is necessary before understanding can be achieved. In order to maximally understand what someone means when that someone writes or speaks, it is frequently necessary to think in terms of how else the received expression can be alternatively expressed. Clearly, the received expression refers to the operative understanding of the person who hears or reads the communication; so, the positing of alternative manners of expression on the part of the expression recipient can be a way for the recipient to test his or her own understanding. Particularly when the received expression is to any extent objectionable or apparently deficient, a process of re-presenting received expressions with alternative manners of expression which communicate the operative understanding of the person doing the re-presenting can lead to - and, indeed, is necessary in order to arrive at - a better understanding of what the interlocutor has in mind. In fact, it is often the case that such a process is most useful as a means for discovering concerns and understandings deeper than (and leading to) what the interlocutor has (yet) expressed.

Charity for the sake of understanding never sets out to impose a manner of expression. Language-policing is not identical to charity even though charity leading to better understanding can often effect expression and thought modification.

If you see how morality transcends the evolutionary social, then you can see how understanding (well, trying to understand) an other person is essential to moral being as well as how this process demands creativity and why this process in certain cases is never-ending. Understanding is pursued despite the other's manner of expression, and that pursuit is relatively rarely best undertaken or accomplished by initially denying any validity to the perspective communicated by the received expression.

Understanding the other is for the sake of the other even if that understanding is ever of benefit to the person seeking a better understanding of the other.

As I said, I leave it up to you whether to pursue this discussion further. But, you need to understand that what you call "secular ethics" is not necessarily incompatible with God or Godliness. And this can be argued from a religion-based (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, etc.) perspective.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

. . . ethical value doesn’t require divine command.

So, while Rabia and Levinas were religious, the parts you chose actually undercut the idea that divine authority is necessary for moral truth.

It is common to think of authority in terms of laws, commands, and even judgments related to coercion and/or leading to (threats of) retribution or what have you. There is, however, another sense of authority to be appreciated. That sense is well captured by Hannah Arendt in her essay, "What is Authority?" There Arendt addresses what she puts forth as a crisis of authority. She says that the crisis of authority is so widespread that “authority has vanished from the modern world.” According to Arendt, this crisis is so deep that the very concept called authority does not appear to be either “self evident” or “even comprehensible” except, possibly, to some “political scientist [who] may still remember that this concept was once fundamental to political theory.”

Because of the confusion and misunderstandings which have arisen around the concept called authority, Arendt presents “a few remarks on what authority never was”. She notes that authority “is commonly mistaken for some form of power or violence.” However, the nature of authority is such that it “precludes the use of external means of coercion”. Furthermore, authority is “incompatible with persuasion” inasmuch as authority does not have its effect “through a process of argumentation.” Arendt goes on to say that “if authority is to be defined … then, it must be in contradistinction to both coercion by force and persuasion through arguments.”

It is authority so characterized which both Rabia and Levinas recognize as real. It is this realization about authority which ultimately reveals the essence of divine authority. So, in no way are Rabia and Levinas undercutting the idea of divine authority. In fact, they are endorsing this (sense of) authority.

Consider the possibility that authority so characterized is that referred to in Matthew 7: 28-29, to wit, "When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at his teaching, because he taught as one who had authority, and not as their teachers of the law."

 

[remez]

SIMPLY

What difference does it make whether OR NOT gods exist?

Everyone has a worldview. All worldviews address origin, morality, meaning and destiny. Whether God exists or not would affect each area of everyone's wv. That is quite impactful.

 

[DLH]

SIMPLY

What difference does it make whether OR NOT gods exist?

Everyone has a worldview. All worldviews address origin, morality, meaning and destiny. Whether God exists or not would affect each area of everyone's wv. That is quite impactful.

Okay. Specifically, what I was looking for, is what difference that would make. How would it change theist behavior if for some reason it was discovered certainly that God did not exist, or if for atheists some reason he certainly did.

 

[Wiploc]

SIMPLY

What difference does it make whether OR NOT gods exist?

Everyone has a worldview. All worldviews address origin, morality, meaning and destiny. Whether God exists or not would affect each area of everyone's wv. That is quite impactful.

I'll let the first two sentences slide so that we can focus on the third. How does it follow that the existence of gods must affect everyone's view of origin, morality, meaning, and destiny? I don't think you can defend any part of that.