Lance: Re: Steve's last post

Another shot in the origin of morality debate here. This post isn't meant to persuade, just to explore. Been working on it for a couple of days and I'm still not sure it says what I want it to, but here goes.

Let's assume there are two possibilities: God exists and has laid down rules for us; or there is no God and we, humans, are the highest power in existence.

Under the second possibility, there is no absolute basis for morality: there is only what we decide.

In a comment to a previous post, Grandpa John wrote: "As a social species, morality is part of our 'natural instincts' just as with the other social species. Our problem is our 'higher intellegence' allows us to override our natural instincts."

I don't see it quite that way: our natural instincts aren't moral, and it's our higher intelligence that allows us to override those instincts and to act in a moral way.

We've evolved a society that is based on morality, because it's in all of our self-interests to have certain standards.

But, if morality is only what we, humans, say it is, then the only limit on what I can do is whatever I can get away with. The only penalties for lying, cheating, and stealing are earthly ones - therefore, if I can get away with it, or if the potential penalties are worth the rewards, I might as well do it. I might as well go ahead and sleep with the woman I meet at a conference in Seattle. Without God, there is no incentive for me to avoid temptation.

The other possibility, that God exists and wants us to follow certain rules, gives me an incentive to be a good boy that doesn't exist otherwise. The standard is no longer "whatever I can get away with."

There's already an awful lot of corruption in our society. It would be interesting to compare reality to a completely atheist society, and to a completely Christian society. How's that alternate universe transporter coming?