Humans: Good or Evil?

Originally posted by dj2becker
You should rather have said, "I trust that I make myself obscure".

The words "seek and ye shall find" certainly does not answer my question to you. Actually it does. You don't know what you are talking about...

So let me ask the question again...

Are you saying that some words of Christ are more important that other words for example, are the words "seek and ye shall find" more impotant than the words, "ye must be born again"?

When you understand the message , you will drop the idea that you are "born again"

Originally posted by dj2becker
You should rather have said, "I trust that I make myself obscure".

The words "seek and ye shall find" certainly does not answer my question to you. Actually it does. You don't know what you are talking about...

So let me ask the question again...

Are you saying that some words of Christ are more important that other words for example, are the words "seek and ye shall find" more impotant than the words, "ye must be born again"?

Not obscure at all . It's just not for me to show you the way: you have to find it yourself. You have His words , read them until you understand.

Originally posted by frogstomp
Not obscure at all . It's just not for me to show you the way: you have to find it yourself. You have His words , read them until you understand.

It's just not for me to show you the way:

Thank you. It would be impossible for you to show me a way that you don't know, especially if you don't even know where you come from and where you are going.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]You tread some dangerous waters if you attempt to claim some kind of moral knowledge coming from science.

I only claim to have knowledge of how morality probably came to be as a concept in a general way.

If you expect to find the answer to 'what is goodness' in any broad sense of the term, science is not going to yield it to us.

I don't. Goodness is whatever we define it to be.[/b]

So, are you saying that morality is simply a human-invented concept? Is there no morality beyond the imagination?

I don't. Goodness is whatever we define it to be.[/b]

If that is all that goodness is, I see no point in discussing it further. Are you a nominalist?

Originally posted by yousers
So, are you saying that morality is simply a human-invented concept? Is there no morality beyond the imagination?

I don't. Goodness is whatever we define it to be.

If that is all that goodness is, I see no point in discussing it further. Are you a nominalist?[/b]

Goodness is whatever we define it to be.

Back to the question, can I define rape, murder and theft as "goodness"?

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Goodness is whatever we define it to be.

Back to the question, can I define rape, murder and theft as "goodness"?[/b]

Well, if we accept goodness as whatever we define it to be, then I don't see why not.
It is, however, contradictory to call goodness a human construct as proposed, and to then claim some kind of knowledge of this from science. If we carry nominalism in its entirety, then science is nothing but a human construct as well - it is as we define it. If we do not, then science is knowlede of an objective real world, not subject to human definition (the commonly accepted view). In that case, it can't tell us anything about 'goodness [as] whatever we define it to be'.
That being said, I would discard this idea entirely. In that case, no, you cannot define goodness as any arbitrary thing. Goodness exists separate from ourselves and we can know it. We can't change it.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I believe that evolutionary processes are how the concept of good and love originated. However, evolutionary theory is not a system for judging good and evil; it explains why we judge things as good and evil. There is a difference. ...[text shortened]... ade it look like light came from the stars when it really didn't!

I believe that evolutionary processes are how the concept of good and love originated. However, evolutionary theory is not a system for judging good and evil; it explains why we judge things as good and evil. There is a difference. Are you unable to understand that difference?[/b]

If you believe that ‘good and love’ are just concepts you can mold
them anyway you desire. They are subject to you as you see fit to use
the words, there isn’t anything truly ‘good.’ all ‘good’ things are
subject to your whims or personal tastes nothing more, good things
are only in your mind. The same with ‘love’ you can say it is just a
concept too, it too will be totally subject to your whims, you may use
the word and apply it however you will, you don't even have to
blame evolution for your so called views on good or love. It doesn't
matter as long as you are getting something out of it, your thinking
alone defines them evolution is meaningless in this.

Personally, I believe that to be false as I have stated earlier, both of
those are fall into the spiritual, the supernatural, they have absolutely
nothing to do with evolution or even science as you seem to think
everything does. They are real and do not require your thinking or
mine to create them, we are bound to them and so we go about our
lives attempting to justify ourselves in all we do, making excuses for
our bad deeds and patting ourselves on our backs for the good things
we do.
Kelly

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]It's just not for me to show you the way:

Thank you. It would be impossible for you to show me a way that you don't know, especially if you don't even know where you come from and where you are going.[/b]

Of course you would think that since Error controls your thoughts and the more you post the I see that you are fighting the Word., which is another thing you don't understand. I've told you all you need to know, but you reject Christ for Paul.
Until you realize what Christ was and His purpose that He made very clear to those that seek, you will continue to be stuck in the Error: The Truth shall indeed set you free, but you have to seek it.
Until then, you will remain a judgemental creep that sours religion for decent people, and totally at risk of perdition.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b] Goodness is whatever we define it to be.

So can I define rape, theft and murder as "goodness"?[/b]

You can. It would conflict with the vague intuitive common definition of the word (in modern English), but you could. For example:

Person A: I define rape, theft and murder as 'goodness'. Would you stop me if I tried to goodness your sister?

Person B: Yes I would. I'd stop anyone who tried to rape, murder or kidnap my sister.

That exchange is perfectly understandable.

My definition does a much better job of avoiding conflict with the common intuitive definition that either that one or the one that Christians often use, which is why I chose it.

Originally posted by yousers
So, are you saying that morality is simply a human-invented concept? Is there no morality beyond the imagination?

I don't. Goodness is whatever we define it to be.

If that is all that goodness is, I see no point in discussing it further. Are you a nominalist?[/b]

Morality, by the common intuitive definition, is a product of the evolutionary process. I believe the concept is hardwired into us.

Now, the word 'morality' can be defined in any way we choose, since it's simply a combination of pixels/ink molecules/etc organized in a certain way and a certain sound. These physical phenomena do not have any kind of inherent association with the concept that is the common intuitive definition of 'morality' in English.

A question often comes up: "Is XXX morally good?" To answer that question, we can either use the vague intuitive definition, in which people will basically go by how XXX feels to them, and will disagree because people feel differently - and all those people with their mutually inconsistent answers will all be right - or we can choose a less vague definition so as to avoid inconsistency. The closer this definition fits with the intuitive definition, the better it will be in my opinion. I chose a definition that fit as closely to the intuitive one as I could.

Is there morality beyond the imagination? I am not sure I understand the question. Morality is entirely the sum of certain values of beings that are capable of having values. If god(s) exists, he can have his own values that he labels 'moral' but this does not make them inherently 'right'.

Here's some food for thought: what is the etymology of the English words 'moral', 'good', and 'evil'? Are they the words God supposedly spoke directly to humans? Or did Christians redefine them to fit their own purposes? Did the meanings of these words change over time? Do the Japanese use these words in the same way?

If the words have inherent meaning independent of how humans arbritrarily define them, then they should mean the same in all languages and never change their meanings. Of course this is not the case.

I don't know what a nominalist is, so I can't answer your last question.

Personally, I believe that to be false as I have stated earlier, both of
those are fall into the spiritual, the supernatural, they have absolutely
nothing to do with evolution or even science as you seem to think
everything does. They are real and do not require your thinking or
mine to create them, we are bound to them and so we go about our
lives attempting to justify ourselves in all we do ...[text shortened]... xcuses for
our bad deeds and patting ourselves on our backs for the good things
we do.
Kelly[/b]

I still don't understand what 'the spiritual' and 'the supernatural' are.

You've chosen to define 'good' as 'obeying the will of God'. You've chosen to make a lot of assumptions about what God is like and what his will is. Once you've made these choices - which are arbritrary - then maybe by that definition "they are real and do not require your thinking or mine to create them". But there is no 'realness independent of humanity' to the association you've chosen to make between a pattern of pixels and a certain idea. There may or may not be a 'realness independent of humanity' to the concept you've associated with the pixel pattern, but that's a different matter.

Originally posted by dj2becker
[b]Goodness is whatever we define it to be.

Back to the question, can I define rape, murder and theft as "goodness"?[/b]

can I define rape, murder and theft as "goodness"?

absolutely. just don't expect the rest of society to give credence to your definition. goodness and evil are defined by man and by culture; but stupid definitions like this one will never become mainstream. if you recognize that 'goodness' is not something you yourself would like to be subjected to, then you'll quickly find your own definition uninhabitable -- your own self-interest and the influence of your surroundings will lead you naturally to adopt a more suitable definition.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Morality, by the common intuitive definition, is a product of the evolutionary process. I believe the concept is hardwired into us.

Now, the word 'morality' can be defined in any way we choose, since it's simply a combination of pixels/ink molecules/etc organized in a certain way and a certain sound. These physical phenomena do not have any ki ...[text shortened]... s is not the case.

I don't know what a nominalist is, so I can't answer your last question.

Ok, you have definitely committed to the nominalist view of morality - that is, its nature is determined by a given person's definition. Now let me try to clarify my point. If morality consists of no more than a human-generated concept, intuition, whatever; then morality does not exist outside of the human mind. It's existence is dependent on and subject to the mind in which it resides.
Science is ultimately a tool which we use to directly or indirectly observe and describe exactly that which your morality is not - those things which exist outside of the mind. Unfortunately science is as objective as we can get. We remove the observer (ourselves) and describe the world as it functions without us. I hope you can see now that science is absolutely incapable of studying or saying anything about a human-created morality because that morality has no existence outside of the mind (which is removed for objectivity).

So, your reference to the evolution (biological sense) of morality is absurd. Science cannot tell us anything about morality, period.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I still don't understand what 'the spiritual' and 'the supernatural' are.

You've chosen to define 'good' as 'obeying the will of God'. You've chosen to make a lot of assumptions about what God is like and what his will is. Once you've made these choices - which are arbritrary - then maybe by that definition "they are re ...[text shortened]... nity' to the concept you've associated with the pixel pattern, but that's a different matter.

does this add anything of help?

http://www.math.bme.hu/~szabados/group_aggression.html

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]can I define rape, murder and theft as "goodness"?

absolutely. just don't expect the rest of society to give credence to your definition. goodness and evil are defined by man and by culture; but stupid definitions like this one will never become mainstream. if you recognize that 'goodness' is not something you yourself would like to be s ...[text shortened]... the influence of your surroundings will lead you naturally to adopt a more suitable definition.[/b]

Ah, so self-interest is at the heart of morality. If there were no other people to bring negative consequences to murder, rape, and theft, they would be good? If no one finds out, it is good to do any of the above?
I find self-interest to be generally directly opposed to conventional morality. Some even define morality as an attempt to improve the lives of others.