Diamond 17 Absolute Morality

     I had an interesting FB exchange yesterday that led me to ponder greatly on the idea of Absolute Morality. The concept of an absolute right and wrong is not a very popular idea in the world, but I call it my diamond for today.  I am so grateful that in a world where there is conflict over abortion, gay marriage, transgender rights, and a host of other battles that are fought every day in the halls of congress, I have a perfect, unfailing, compass to look to for my guide.  I am grateful that whatever my personal opinions are on a topic, or what popular opinion is, I don't have to worry about what is right and what is wrong.  An all knowing, all powerful, kind, loving, Father in Heaven has already drawn the line, my decision is if I have enough faith to stand on His side of it.  In contrast to the view of the man in the following video, who would rather live in a world where there is no absolute morality, where morals are decided by "a secular moral philosophy, and rational discussion."  When faced with a decision about morals I will leave it to a perfect God who created the universe, rather than a group of philosophers and politicians.  

You can see the video here:

https://www.facebook.com/aScienceEnthusiast/videos/1398541446840963/

and my exchange with some fans are below:

J.d. Sheppard What Dakins fails to address is the danger when all the discussing, debating, and final decisions about morality happen in a society where there is no supreme being. If I belong to such a society, and happen to be in a position of power, what's to stop me from bending morality to match my best interests. If I am a powerful debator, or convincing orator, I may be able to sway the majority of society to my "morality" even though it can be very harmful to others who are not as talented as I am. We can see this time and time again in a government that has excluded God and separated church and state. Right now one good example is Pornography. Christianity states that Pornography is immoral. This comes from scripture and from a God that can see all, know all, and has felt all. I can trust that whatever my views may be on pornography, if I believe in God, I can trust that he knows better than I do on the subject. Not because he has discussed it in a group of rational people, and it is the popular feeling at the time, but because I have faith that he knows more than I do on any and all subjects. Now take pornography in Dawkins world where all morality is decided through debate, discussion, and logic in committees. If at a particular time the majority of society believes that pornography is moral (or at least is not immoral) and the porn industry is given free access to all advertisements, television, banners on websites, etc.. there is no course of action for those who disagree with the "decided morality". If I oppose pornography and feel it is immoral, it doesn't matter because the matter has already been decided and the majority of society has decided that it is not immoral, so too bad for you and your ideas. Now, this example could happen with any topic, drug use, gun control, murder. Now you may say that the collective would never come to a consensus that murder was moral, my argument would be to look at capital punishment. Who decides what crimes against the "accepted morality" are punishable by death? In the Philippines the president is killing anyone that is arrested in connection with the drug cartels. Selling drugs is against his "morality" thus he feels he is justified in killing those who participate. What if a leader or group of leaders that is drunk with power feels that grand theft auto is a capital crime and thus kills all car thieves. It is easy to see how quickly Dakins logic can be abused. Anytime we give man power there is the danger of abuse of that power, and in Dakins argument that is exactly what he wants to do, give power of morality to a group of people that can be easily mistaken, misunderstood, swayed to believe one way or anther based on "mob mentality". I am glad that my morality is based upon principles layed out by a perfect and loving God. As for the claims that modern society now has evolved and has created this 'moral' place where we are gentle, women have rights, and we are kind to animals, where is your proof that this didn't come from religion? These are things that have been taught by Christ since he walked the earth: "All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; love thy neighbor as thysef" I could go on. So if we live in a society with these principles, isn't logical to assume they come to us from a God that has been preaching them for over 2000 years? Dakins states that we pick and choose the good parts of the bible and that we have grown out of the bad parts because of "secular moral philosophy, and rational discussion", I argue that we don't pick and choose, I am a Christian, and as such I follow what Christ teaches. His examples of death to an apostate, and stoning of an adulterer are from the Law of Moses. I don't want to dive too deep into doctrinal belief, but the Law of Moses was not "grown out of" but fulfilled in the death of Christ. My point being that God has certain laws and morality that is stated in The Bible, and we don't pick and choose the good ones, all of Christ's teachings I will stand behind as moral. Not because of "secular moral philosophy, or rational discussion" but because He is an all knowing, loving God that has taught and continues to teach basic moral principles for His children to be happy.

Like · Reply · 1 · 22 hrs · Edited

Joe Wolsing The democracy in Germany created after the Nazi regime was designed not only by Germans, but with the help of politicians and scientists of the allied forces.
An important feature of it is the term defensive democracy. It is structured to enable the citizens of our nation to live in a very wide range of freedom - including free speach and free thought. The limit is the denial of the democratic and humanistic rights to individuals or groups. Youu can advocate every idea and have any opinion outspoken, exept the one that you deny these rights to others. This is fixed in the Grundgesetzt wich is correspondent to constitutions in other countries.
I think this is a good way to protect the already acchieved moral ideas and the rights corresponding with, or following out of them. No higher power than the law necessary ...

Like · Reply · 22 hrs

J.d. Sheppard Wow, Thank you Joe for stating your views in a respectful and courteous way, I don't often find that on FB. But isn't your own history proof of my point? Hitler was very charismatic, and a great leader, or so it was thought. Because he had been given so much power he was able to sway popular opinion to bend to his own "morality". I agree that what you have lined out seems to be a very good way to allow everyone the freedom to have their own moral ideas, without infringing on the rights of others, but what about when there is conflict over my rights and your rights? One example would be abortion, do the rights of the mother supersede the rights of the unborn child? Who decides if the baby should have rights or not? A committee? The popular voice of the time? whatever your personal opinion is about abortion I think it is easy to see where and why there can be conflict. Or what about gay marriage? If a Christian pastor doesn't want to perform the marriage isn't there a conflict? The rights of the couple vs the rights of the pastor. Who decides whose rights will win? Morally the couple feels they have a right to get married in a church, and morally the pastor feels he has a right to not perform the ceremony. I know governments and laws have faced and are facing these problems right now, and without reference to an absolute morality, given by a higher power, there is no correct answer. It will eventually come down to the side that has the most power will infringe on the morality of the other. On the other hand, if we would look to heaven for a definition of morality, there is no conflict because what is right is right according to an all knowing all powerful God. There is no shifting of morals based on popular opinion. What's also worth noting is that the idea of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom in general, was outlined first in the constitution as "God-given rights". God has always preached persuasion by love, and by his spirit, not by force. It is my belief that the very democracy you cite, and then state that "No higher power than the law necessary" is created after the Constitution of the United States of America, which was based on Judeo-Christian morals. In the end, I feel Dawkins misses the point that left to our own definitions of morals, there will always be conflict. Whereas if we look to God, morality is defined and un-moving.

Like · Reply · 18 hrs

Chaitanya Patil I always find the idea of "God given rights" extremely funny. Apparently, god was doing sloppy work that day, as the rights had to amended multiple times. Also, he forget some things, like you know slavery. Totally slipped his mind.

Like · Reply · 18 hrs

Chaitanya Patil Also, religious morality will grow obsolete in the future, dominated by A.I. and robots.

Like · Reply · 18 hrs

J.d. Sheppard I think the statement "all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" was pretty clear about slavery, and has not been amended. Just becauseit took a long time for America to follow it's own decree isn't God's fault. Also God did not come down and write the Declaration, it was imperfect men trying to do what they felt God would have them do, so no, he didn't do sloppy work, and he didn't forget some things. He allowed men to work it out on their own (see comment above)

Like · Reply · 18 hrs