Is universal morality compatible with the idea of free will?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I recently came across a Huffington piece about discerning God's will.  The author quotes a passage from Philip Gulley's The Evolution of Faith: How God Is Creating a Better Christianity, in which he writes, "it seems contradictory to speak of a God who has given us free will and at the same time has devised a precise plan for our lives that must be followed for us to be blessed. It suggests God is double-minded, extending the gift of human freedom one moment, then punishing us for exercising that freedom the next moment."  Seeking God's will, he continues, "means giving careful attention to the ultimate priorities of God, which are love, mercy, wisdom, justice, and integrity. It is to keep these priorities ever before us, letting them inform our lives so that all we are and all we do serves to expand these virtues."

From my experience, more conservative Christian (usually Calvinists) seem to believe that there is only one, specific set of guidelines that a person must follow to be considered moral.  There are Christians who think these guidelines can be followed freely, and there are others who believe when and if we fall out of line (which is basically everyone) is not to our own choosing.

So, how can the very dogmatic Christians reconcile their belief in free will (presuming they have belief in free will) with the professed importance of following God's own will?

[barfbag]

It's compatible only if we acknowledge that humans are creatures of similarity beyond what we do now.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, it is compatible.  All men desire to do good, but the scope over which they consider good varies.  A person who maximizes good only for himself is more likely to do evil, i.e., actions that others would consider harmful.. The wider a scope one tries to maximize good over, family, clan, tribe, nation, humanity, biology, etc. the less evil will be done.  Free will essentially acts as slider on the scale of how broadly we seek to do good.  Universal morality as represented by the Divine, whether one considers it to be no more than an abstraction or an actual presence known as God, is that which comes from considering good over a universal scale.  However, we humans are incapable of the perfect knowledge that enables to know for certain which is good on that scale, even if we aspire to use it.  Hence differences in the scope over which goodness is to be applied, and knowledge about what the results of actions will be lead to differences of opinion on whether actions are good or not.

Incidentally, good and evil are complete opposites only when both are applied over the same domain.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I suppose they are given a multitude of good and bad choices in a situation.  They are free to choice between the good ones and still be within God's will. 

This is obviously not a question for me but that's my $0.02.

[DC Al Fine]

From my experience, more conservative Christian (usually Calvinists) seem to believe that there is only one, specific set of guidelines that a person must follow to be considered moral.  There are Christians who think these guidelines can be followed freely, and there are others who believe when and if we fall out of line (which is basically everyone) is not to our own choosing.

So, how can the very dogmatic Christians reconcile their belief in free will (presuming they have belief in free will) with the professed importance of following God's own will?

Don't virtually all conservative Christians believe this?

A set of standards or incentives affects doesn't mean one doesn't have volition. If you were talking about the apparent contradiction between election and free will, then sure, you'd have a point, but from what you've written I'm failing to see any issue.

Could you elaborate on your position a bit? As you've phrased it, it seems like you're arguing that my will for my dog to not sh**t in the house contradicts the dog's free will.

[TJ in Oregon]

Yes. I think the distinction that needs to be made here that has so far been missing is the existence of morally neutral acts.

In order to sin, there must be some thought, word, or act against God's laws, or against the universal morality. In other words, God having a plan for us is distinct from the existence of a universal morality. A universal morality contains only things that are intrinsically evil, whereas acting contrary to God's plan could contain some morally neutral act that isn't the highest good it could be, but still isn't a sin. Perhaps God would really like me to be praying right now rather than typing up this response, but typing up this response still isn't sinful. Or, if it is a truly morally neutral act, like going for a run or eating dinner. Perhaps God would rather I went to a Holy Hour instead, but those things still aren't a violation of morality in any way.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

From my experience, more conservative Christian (usually Calvinists) seem to believe that there is only one, specific set of guidelines that a person must follow to be considered moral.  There are Christians who think these guidelines can be followed freely, and there are others who believe when and if we fall out of line (which is basically everyone) is not to our own choosing.

So, how can the very dogmatic Christians reconcile their belief in free will (presuming they have belief in free will) with the professed importance of following God's own will?

Don't virtually all conservative Christians believe this?

A set of standards or incentives affects doesn't mean one doesn't have volition. If you were talking about the apparent contradiction between election and free will, then sure, you'd have a point, but from what you've written I'm failing to see any issue.

Could you elaborate on your position a bit? As you've phrased it, it seems like you're arguing that my will for my dog to not sh**t in the house contradicts the dog's free will.

Ugh.  Sorry.  I'm probably just confusing myself.  Even as I type this response I find myself having to go back several times just to understand what the hell I'm talking about.

First of all, your dog analogy wouldn't really fit with this theory, which surmises that God has given man free will, yet threatens to punish anyone who follows through on that free will, contrary to His own, perfect will.

I think TJ's post best solves this problem: we have free will, and there is a number of decisions we make that bear no moral weight or otherwise don't constitute as sin.  Feeding the hungry may be a better, moral alternative to going to the park for a walk, yet the act of choosing to go to the park, in and of itself, is not offensive to God.  Even if God's will consists entirely of helping others around the clock, not following His will all the time is not considered sin.  In other words, the absence of 'good' decisions doesn't necessarily imply the presence of 'bad' decisions.  What comes to question is when and what negative consequences arise from not making the right ones.

Additionally, lacking what is purported to be God's "ultimate priorities" (love, mercy, wisdom, justice, and integrity) can constitute as sin regardless of the situation.  You can argue that pretty much all religions believe these to be part of God's will, yet just as with the previous question, they differ on how each of these traits can be properly exercised.

[DC Al Fine]

From my experience, more conservative Christian (usually Calvinists) seem to believe that there is only one, specific set of guidelines that a person must follow to be considered moral.  There are Christians who think these guidelines can be followed freely, and there are others who believe when and if we fall out of line (which is basically everyone) is not to our own choosing.

So, how can the very dogmatic Christians reconcile their belief in free will (presuming they have belief in free will) with the professed importance of following God's own will?

Don't virtually all conservative Christians believe this?

A set of standards or incentives affects doesn't mean one doesn't have volition. If you were talking about the apparent contradiction between election and free will, then sure, you'd have a point, but from what you've written I'm failing to see any issue.

Could you elaborate on your position a bit? As you've phrased it, it seems like you're arguing that my will for my dog to not sh**t in the house contradicts the dog's free will.

Ugh.  Sorry.  I'm probably just confusing myself.  Even as I type this response I find myself having to go back several times just to understand what the hell I'm talking about.

First of all, your dog analogy wouldn't really fit with this theory, which surmises that God has given man free will, yet threatens to punish anyone who follows through on that free will, contrary to His own, perfect will.

I think TJ's post best solves this problem: we have free will, and there is a number of decisions we make that bear no moral weight or otherwise don't constitute as sin.  Feeding the hungry may be a better, moral alternative to going to the park for a walk, yet the act of choosing to go to the park, in and of itself, is not offensive to God.  Even if God's will consists entirely of helping others around the clock, not following His will all the time is not considered sin.  In other words, the absence of 'good' decisions doesn't necessarily imply the presence of 'bad' decisions.  What comes to question is when and what negative consequences arise from not making the right ones.

Additionally, lacking what is purported to be God's "ultimate priorities" (love, mercy, wisdom, justice, and integrity) can constitute as sin regardless of the situation.  You can argue that pretty much all religions believe these to be part of God's will, yet just as with the previous question, they differ on how each of these traits can be properly exercised.

Oh, that makes much more sense.

In addition to what TJ said, I would say that free will is a moral good unto itself, which then solves the apparent contradiction between free will and God's law.

[DemPGH]

I'm probably not sure what free will and universal morality have to do with each other, and I'm not sure I really understand the topic or follow, but I am not religious, spiritual, or of faith, so I would need those terms defined or qualified.

The point I want to make, and I suppose it's making me think of something about which I was reading recently, is that I think free will today is not the free will of centuries ago. Centuries ago we were under divine right of kings, the pope had real secular authority, and other rubbish. We're past that. For example, the pope had an executioner well into very modern times. Want to read about a sick, perverted, sadistic, demented individual? Read about Maestro Titta (died 1869).

Free will was free will to tell the pope to go stuff himself, essentially. It was to make your own choices about God, revelation, etc. Today, conversely, it's kind of pointless: it's construed to mean, do I really have free will to become this or that or President of the United States? Well, yes, but what are the odds of such a thing? Near zero.

That you do not have free will is an illusion, and that you have free will to be anything is an exaggeration.

How does that relate to morality? Well, we don't need God to give us morality. And it depends upon the definition, so I'm back to where I started.

And if the conversation is about, Does God know everything, including all the decisions everyone will ever make, then I think that's just pointless. It's like arguing over which is stronger, the immovable object or the irresistible force.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

DemPGH, I would not characterize 'free will,' in the original question, as something without limits.  No, far from.  In this scenario, free will refers to the ability of agents to make choices unconstrained by a deterministic path.  In other words, we consciously make decisions for everything we do and our destinies are shaped by ourselves as well as by individuals, societies, and nature, but not necessarily by someone micromanaging our lives, presuming a higher power exists.  Our choices may be limited, yet we retain a moral sense of freedom that is confined within our circumstances.  To use your example: one who desires to become President of the United States may not be successful in doing so, yet their fate is not necessarily sealed by a divine force or otherwise.  I could go on and on about this, but that is essentially how I am defining it.

Secondly, universal morality (aka moral objectivism) is the position that there is some system of ethics than can be applied to all societies, regardless of background, gender, race, religion, etc.  Whether or not a God is involved is up to the person proclaiming UM's existence (indeed, UM is not necessarily evidence of God by itself... but that's a debate for another day), yet in the context of the question, it implies the existence of a creator.

That all being said, this question evidently cannot apply to the non-religious much at all, but it is something many theists grapple with.

[barfbag]

From my experience, more conservative Christian (usually Calvinists) seem to believe that there is only one, specific set of guidelines that a person must follow to be considered moral.  There are Christians who think these guidelines can be followed freely, and there are others who believe when and if we fall out of line (which is basically everyone) is not to our own choosing.

So, how can the very dogmatic Christians reconcile their belief in free will (presuming they have belief in free will) with the professed importance of following God's own will?

Don't virtually all conservative Christians believe this?

A set of standards or incentives affects doesn't mean one doesn't have volition. If you were talking about the apparent contradiction between election and free will, then sure, you'd have a point, but from what you've written I'm failing to see any issue.

Could you elaborate on your position a bit? As you've phrased it, it seems like you're arguing that my will for my dog to not sh**t in the house contradicts the dog's free will.

Another way to look at it is if you have to go to the bathroom and try to hold it, does losing control of your sphincter contradict free will? Did God intend for you to crap your pants? We have free will, but what we can do is limited to what is logical. Simply because someone has diarrhea or can't hold their poop from coming out, doesn't mean we don't have free will.

[afleitch]

DemPGH, I would not characterize 'free will,' in the original question, as something without limits.  No, far from.  In this scenario, free will refers to the ability of agents to make choices unconstrained by a deterministic path.  In other words, we consciously make decisions for everything we do and our destinies are shaped by ourselves as well as by individuals, societies, and nature, but not necessarily by someone micromanaging our lives, presuming a higher power exists.  Our choices may be limited, yet we retain a moral sense of freedom that is confined within our circumstances.  To use your example: one who desires to become President of the United States may not be successful in doing so, yet their fate is not necessarily sealed by a divine force or otherwise.  I could go on and on about this, but that is essentially how I am defining it.

Secondly, universal morality (aka moral objectivism) is the position that there is some system of ethics than can be applied to all societies, regardless of background, gender, race, religion, etc.  Whether or not a God is involved is up to the person proclaiming UM's existence (indeed, UM is not necessarily evidence of God by itself... but that's a debate for another day), yet in the context of the question, it implies the existence of a creator.

That all being said, this question evidently cannot apply to the non-religious much at all, but it is something many theists grapple with.

If you consider free will to be defined by the method in which you define it, why infer a deity at all? Why delegate the concept of free will ‘upwards’ just because we humans consider it a lofty concept? On the matter of universal morality, such a thing does not exist once you start defining precisely what universal means. If we infer that human morality (which is a very difficult thing to determine) is somehow universal, first of all you are making an objective statement by projecting our understanding of what is morally right and wrong at a very base level as somehow being ‘universal.’ Our own morality is determined by our evolutionary need and cannot extend beyond that domain. We are covering the same ground as this has been discussed on here before (but I am aware that either no one reads nor cares to respond to most of what I talk about on here anyway so I’m not fussed in repeating myself ) So therefore we can objectively state that ‘murder of humans by humans = bad’ (with the usual caveats of course) But we cannot say to an animal that reproduces then kills it’s mate or has it’s young burst from it’s abdomen that because their evolutionary niche requires acts of intra-species ‘murder’ that what they do is morally ‘wrong.’ This is where theists start getting messy fingers too. Gods tend to be the ‘givers’ of human morality and seem to act as we do (or indeed are more capricious and without self restraint at times). What creator god can determine a moral code that is entirely objective given that the ‘morality’ on this planet appears to be relative based on evolutionary drive? What about other worlds? Why should we even assume that concepts of love, justice etc preached by god apply to other beings. Would this god send someone to talk about ‘love’ if love was not a tangible concept in that world? If it wasn’t, what would he talk about? What if for their existence, as some evolutionary function for example; hate was a better thing to embrace than love; would he preach hate because it benefits them more than love? What actions and morals are therefore ‘right’ in the universe as a whole? If everything is relative and god is the ultimate source of that, then how on earth can you infer his will?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Afleitch, it's simple: the existence of free will no more negates the existence of God than evolution does.  Free will merely suggests that God isn't pulling all the strings.  That isn't to say God takes a complete laissez-faire approach (the extent to which He intervenes would depend on your faith), but it simply connects to how much God interacts with His creation and overrides events that are 'likely' to occur, not whether or not a higher power exists.

And yes, 'human morality' would probably be a better term for it if you want to get into semantics, yet it is 'universal' in that it applies to all humans.

[afleitch]

Afleitch, it's simple: the existence of free will no more negates the existence of God than evolution does.  Free will merely suggests that God isn't pulling all the strings.  That isn't to say God takes a complete laissez-faire approach (the extent to which He intervenes would depend on your faith), but it simply connects to how much God interacts with His creation and overrides events that are 'likely' to occur, not whether or not a higher power exists.

And yes, 'human morality' would probably be a better term for it if you want to get into semantics, yet it is 'universal' in that it applies to all humans.

That's not what I asked. I asked on what basis a deity can be considered the source of universal morality when in all iterations of life on earth (never mind any extra terrestrial life) there are different evolutionary responses which are beneficial to the respective species but may not be beneficial to another species. Therefore you could deduce that universal morality is amoral. If god is the source of this universal morality then that would imply that god itself is amoral. An amoral deity would have no interest in the choices you make, other than inviting you to make them. In the same way that I have no interest in the choices a rabbit makes, other than hoping the rabbit fulfills it's own destiny as a rabbit.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Afleitch, it's simple: the existence of free will no more negates the existence of God than evolution does.  Free will merely suggests that God isn't pulling all the strings.  That isn't to say God takes a complete laissez-faire approach (the extent to which He intervenes would depend on your faith), but it simply connects to how much God interacts with His creation and overrides events that are 'likely' to occur, not whether or not a higher power exists.

And yes, 'human morality' would probably be a better term for it if you want to get into semantics, yet it is 'universal' in that it applies to all humans.

That's not what I asked. I asked on what basis a deity can be considered the source of universal morality when in all iterations of life on earth (never mind any extra terrestrial life) there are different evolutionary responses which are beneficial to the respective species but may not be beneficial to another species. Therefore you could deduce that universal morality is amoral. If god is the source of this universal morality then that would imply that god itself is amoral. An amoral deity would have no interest in the choices you make, other than inviting you to make them. In the same way that I have no interest in the choices a rabbit makes, other than hoping the rabbit fulfills it's own destiny as a rabbit.

Most religions teach that humans are unique in that they are held to moral standards, unlike animals which act primarily on instinct.  In Christianity, humans are given the task to make it "on earth as it is in heaven," whereas animals are guided, through their evolutionary instincts, to survive and prolong their existence so that they may continue their role in the food chain.  For that reason, you cannot assess animal behaviors through the scope of morality much at all.  The fact that humans are held to standards while other species are not does not mean God is amoral.

[afleitch]

Afleitch, it's simple: the existence of free will no more negates the existence of God than evolution does.  Free will merely suggests that God isn't pulling all the strings.  That isn't to say God takes a complete laissez-faire approach (the extent to which He intervenes would depend on your faith), but it simply connects to how much God interacts with His creation and overrides events that are 'likely' to occur, not whether or not a higher power exists.

And yes, 'human morality' would probably be a better term for it if you want to get into semantics, yet it is 'universal' in that it applies to all humans.

That's not what I asked. I asked on what basis a deity can be considered the source of universal morality when in all iterations of life on earth (never mind any extra terrestrial life) there are different evolutionary responses which are beneficial to the respective species but may not be beneficial to another species. Therefore you could deduce that universal morality is amoral. If god is the source of this universal morality then that would imply that god itself is amoral. An amoral deity would have no interest in the choices you make, other than inviting you to make them. In the same way that I have no interest in the choices a rabbit makes, other than hoping the rabbit fulfills it's own destiny as a rabbit.

Most religions teach that humans are unique in that they are held to moral standards, unlike animals which act primarily on instinct.  In Christianity, humans are given the task to make it "on earth as it is in heaven," whereas animals are guided, through their evolutionary instincts, to survive and prolong their existence so that they may continue their role in the food chain.  For that reason, you cannot assess animal behaviors through the scope of morality much at all.  The fact that humans are held to standards while other species are not does not mean God is amoral.

And we do not act entirely on instinct? Our entire collective purpose as a race is to survive and prolong our existence. We are lucky that for most of us at least, we can split off and invest time in making art or getting drunk. But in times of shortage or crisis such pursuits are put by the wayside. There is very little separating us from our ape cousins on a social level. There really isn't. There isn't much between us and cats either when it comes to mating, companionship, socialisation, play, play fighting, hierarchy and territorial-ism. Ours are more finely tuned but that's all. Why on earth should we be held to 'higher standards' when we actually share those standards with other species?

If one animal cuddles it's mate after sex and the other eats it and god has established the rules by which man and beast live, how can god be anything but amoral?

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Afleitch, it's simple: the existence of free will no more negates the existence of God than evolution does.  Free will merely suggests that God isn't pulling all the strings.  That isn't to say God takes a complete laissez-faire approach (the extent to which He intervenes would depend on your faith), but it simply connects to how much God interacts with His creation and overrides events that are 'likely' to occur, not whether or not a higher power exists.

And yes, 'human morality' would probably be a better term for it if you want to get into semantics, yet it is 'universal' in that it applies to all humans.

That's not what I asked. I asked on what basis a deity can be considered the source of universal morality when in all iterations of life on earth (never mind any extra terrestrial life) there are different evolutionary responses which are beneficial to the respective species but may not be beneficial to another species. Therefore you could deduce that universal morality is amoral. If god is the source of this universal morality then that would imply that god itself is amoral. An amoral deity would have no interest in the choices you make, other than inviting you to make them. In the same way that I have no interest in the choices a rabbit makes, other than hoping the rabbit fulfills it's own destiny as a rabbit.

Most religions teach that humans are unique in that they are held to moral standards, unlike animals which act primarily on instinct.  In Christianity, humans are given the task to make it "on earth as it is in heaven," whereas animals are guided, through their evolutionary instincts, to survive and prolong their existence so that they may continue their role in the food chain.  For that reason, you cannot assess animal behaviors through the scope of morality much at all.  The fact that humans are held to standards while other species are not does not mean God is amoral.

And we do not act entirely on instinct? Our entire collective purpose as a race is to survive and prolong our existence. We are lucky that for most of us at least, we can split off and invest time in making art or getting drunk. But in times of shortage or crisis such pursuits are put by the wayside. There is very little separating us from our ape cousins on a social level. There really isn't. There isn't much between us and cats either when it comes to mating, companionship, socialisation, play, play fighting, hierarchy and territorial-ism. Ours are more finely tuned but that's all. Why on earth should we be held to 'higher standards' when we actually share those standards with other species?

If one animal cuddles it's mate after sex and the other eats it and god has established the rules by which man and beast live, how can god be anything but amoral?

No.  If we did everything by instinct (instinct, which of course is defined as an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli), then we would not have free will.  The majority of human behaviors are learned.  There is much separating us from animals on a social level even though we share much our DNA with apes.  Our ability to rationalize is greater than that of most animals.  I thought that much was self-evident.  If you truly believe the differences between us and cats are that simple and insignificant, then I can't help you.

God may have established the rules by which man and beast live, but animals are programmed differently than we are, which is why humans do not consume their mates after sex.

[afleitch]

Afleitch, it's simple: the existence of free will no more negates the existence of God than evolution does.  Free will merely suggests that God isn't pulling all the strings.  That isn't to say God takes a complete laissez-faire approach (the extent to which He intervenes would depend on your faith), but it simply connects to how much God interacts with His creation and overrides events that are 'likely' to occur, not whether or not a higher power exists.

And yes, 'human morality' would probably be a better term for it if you want to get into semantics, yet it is 'universal' in that it applies to all humans.

That's not what I asked. I asked on what basis a deity can be considered the source of universal morality when in all iterations of life on earth (never mind any extra terrestrial life) there are different evolutionary responses which are beneficial to the respective species but may not be beneficial to another species. Therefore you could deduce that universal morality is amoral. If god is the source of this universal morality then that would imply that god itself is amoral. An amoral deity would have no interest in the choices you make, other than inviting you to make them. In the same way that I have no interest in the choices a rabbit makes, other than hoping the rabbit fulfills it's own destiny as a rabbit.

Most religions teach that humans are unique in that they are held to moral standards, unlike animals which act primarily on instinct.  In Christianity, humans are given the task to make it "on earth as it is in heaven," whereas animals are guided, through their evolutionary instincts, to survive and prolong their existence so that they may continue their role in the food chain.  For that reason, you cannot assess animal behaviors through the scope of morality much at all.  The fact that humans are held to standards while other species are not does not mean God is amoral.

And we do not act entirely on instinct? Our entire collective purpose as a race is to survive and prolong our existence. We are lucky that for most of us at least, we can split off and invest time in making art or getting drunk. But in times of shortage or crisis such pursuits are put by the wayside. There is very little separating us from our ape cousins on a social level. There really isn't. There isn't much between us and cats either when it comes to mating, companionship, socialisation, play, play fighting, hierarchy and territorial-ism. Ours are more finely tuned but that's all. Why on earth should we be held to 'higher standards' when we actually share those standards with other species?

If one animal cuddles it's mate after sex and the other eats it and god has established the rules by which man and beast live, how can god be anything but amoral?

No.  If we did everything by instinct (instinct, which of course is defined as an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli), then we would not have free will.  The majority of human behaviors are learned.  There is much separating us from animals on a social level even though we share much our DNA with apes.  Our ability to rationalize is greater than that of most animals.  I thought that much was self-evident.  If you truly believe the differences between us and cats are that simple and insignificant, then I can't help you.

God may have established the rules by which man and beast live, but animals are programmed differently than we are, which is why humans do not consume their mates after sex.

Adult chimps have a greater cognitive power than an infant child, but no matter. If you cannot see the similarities between us and apes when it comes to socialisation, group bonding, jealousy, love, tenderness and sloth then I cannot help you

If god established the rules and all the rules are different (i.e we don't consume our mates after sex) and you accept that proposition, then god has to be amoral; amoral to the insect eating it's mate and a human cuddling theirs, amoral to me and my husband or my friend and his wife. You can argue that each species has certain attributes that if it violates could be considered immoral to that species (and perhaps therefore to god), but you cannot argue that god takes a moral position with regards to his creation. Therefore you cannot say 'killing is morally wrong in the eyes of god' if it is utilised by many creatures (and us too) as a means of survival.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Afleitch, it's simple: the existence of free will no more negates the existence of God than evolution does.  Free will merely suggests that God isn't pulling all the strings.  That isn't to say God takes a complete laissez-faire approach (the extent to which He intervenes would depend on your faith), but it simply connects to how much God interacts with His creation and overrides events that are 'likely' to occur, not whether or not a higher power exists.

And yes, 'human morality' would probably be a better term for it if you want to get into semantics, yet it is 'universal' in that it applies to all humans.

That's not what I asked. I asked on what basis a deity can be considered the source of universal morality when in all iterations of life on earth (never mind any extra terrestrial life) there are different evolutionary responses which are beneficial to the respective species but may not be beneficial to another species. Therefore you could deduce that universal morality is amoral. If god is the source of this universal morality then that would imply that god itself is amoral. An amoral deity would have no interest in the choices you make, other than inviting you to make them. In the same way that I have no interest in the choices a rabbit makes, other than hoping the rabbit fulfills it's own destiny as a rabbit.

Most religions teach that humans are unique in that they are held to moral standards, unlike animals which act primarily on instinct.  In Christianity, humans are given the task to make it "on earth as it is in heaven," whereas animals are guided, through their evolutionary instincts, to survive and prolong their existence so that they may continue their role in the food chain.  For that reason, you cannot assess animal behaviors through the scope of morality much at all.  The fact that humans are held to standards while other species are not does not mean God is amoral.

And we do not act entirely on instinct? Our entire collective purpose as a race is to survive and prolong our existence. We are lucky that for most of us at least, we can split off and invest time in making art or getting drunk. But in times of shortage or crisis such pursuits are put by the wayside. There is very little separating us from our ape cousins on a social level. There really isn't. There isn't much between us and cats either when it comes to mating, companionship, socialisation, play, play fighting, hierarchy and territorial-ism. Ours are more finely tuned but that's all. Why on earth should we be held to 'higher standards' when we actually share those standards with other species?

If one animal cuddles it's mate after sex and the other eats it and god has established the rules by which man and beast live, how can god be anything but amoral?

No.  If we did everything by instinct (instinct, which of course is defined as an innate, typically fixed pattern of behavior in animals in response to certain stimuli), then we would not have free will.  The majority of human behaviors are learned.  There is much separating us from animals on a social level even though we share much our DNA with apes.  Our ability to rationalize is greater than that of most animals.  I thought that much was self-evident.  If you truly believe the differences between us and cats are that simple and insignificant, then I can't help you.

God may have established the rules by which man and beast live, but animals are programmed differently than we are, which is why humans do not consume their mates after sex.

Adult chimps have a greater cognitive power than an infant child, but no matter. If you cannot see the similarities between us and apes when it comes to socialisation, group bonding, jealousy, love, tenderness and sloth then I cannot help you

If god established the rules and all the rules are different (i.e we don't consume our mates after sex) and you accept that proposition, then god has to be amoral; amoral to the insect eating it's mate and a human cuddling theirs, amoral to me and my husband or my friend and his wife. You can argue that each species has certain attributes that if it violates could be considered immoral to that species (and perhaps therefore to god), but you cannot argue that god takes a moral position with regards to his creation. Therefore you cannot say 'killing is morally wrong in the eyes of god' if it is utilised by many creatures (and us too) as a means of survival.

It's been well established that chimps are the closest living relatives to humans, but that does not mean we are on the same social level as them.  No, the only species humans are on the same social level as is, well, humans, and the only species of human that exists today is homo sapiens.  The percentage of DNA humans share with chimpanzees is pretty impressive (85-95%), but most of DNA is composed of what all living things share, and the dissimilarities that exist are enough to make humans distinct from troglodyte and pan paniscus chimps.  You simply cannot cherrypick the traits or evolutionary history we share and establish exactness.

As I've stated earlier, animal behaviors cannot be assessed with a moral scope, especially one that is applied to humans only.  Insects, from what science knows now, do not have belief in a God or Gods.  They are not expected of anything except of what their instincts guide them with.  In other words, humans are simply held to different standards, both by nature and God.  Christians believe that specifically humans were made in God's image, and not animals.  To suggest that God is amoral because there are different standards for different species is a vast oversimplification.

[afleitch]

It's been well established that chimps are the closest living relatives to humans, but that does not mean we are on the same social level as them.  No, the only species humans are on the same social level as is, well, humans, and the only species of human that exists today is homo sapiens.  The percentage of DNA humans share with chimpanzees is pretty impressive (85-95%), but most of DNA is composed of what all living things share, and the dissimilarities that exist are enough to make humans distinct from troglodyte and pan paniscus chimps.  You simply cannot cherrypick the traits or evolutionary history we share and establish exactness.

As I've stated earlier, animal behaviors cannot be assessed with a moral scope, especially one that is applied to humans only.  Insects, from what science knows now, do not have belief in a God or Gods.  They are not expected of anything except of what their instincts guide them with.  In other words, humans are simply held to different standards, both by nature and God.  Christians believe that specifically humans were made in God's image, and not animals.  To suggest that God is amoral because there are different standards for different species is a vast oversimplification.

Yet the similarities between us and our close relatives are there, no? Which means if humans are made in 'gods' image then apes are made almost in gods image and lemurs almost but less so and so on. Of course you know that in fact it's the other way around. You also know that we are not the end; that we will (if the conditions are met) continue to evolve at which point, presumably we will not be in gods image any more.

I find the idea that we, out of the exponential potential of intelligent life in the cosmos are made in the image of the creator of everything is both tender and quite pitiful. But that is a moot point and is a personal reflection (Christianity sits below a number of other theologies for me when it comes to conceiving the best understanding of the universe and purpose)

You cannot attribute moral values to a creator god who has set in motion different evolutionary moral responses which are beneficial to respective species. If you endow god with our moral values (or even if you coat it with the idea that he gave them to us) then you are essentially saying he is finite and can only conceive a fixed morality with the same perception as our own.

Even if morality only applies to us, it doesn't alter the fact that other living things do things that we would consider immoral if applied to us, but are necessary for their survival. If god set that in motion then that is his will too. If god allows differing actions from which we can construct a moral framework depending on the needs of the species, then he can clearly entertain the notion of all sorts of actions being beneficial to one, yet detrimental to another and is therefore an amoral entity.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

It's been well established that chimps are the closest living relatives to humans, but that does not mean we are on the same social level as them.  No, the only species humans are on the same social level as is, well, humans, and the only species of human that exists today is homo sapiens.  The percentage of DNA humans share with chimpanzees is pretty impressive (85-95%), but most of DNA is composed of what all living things share, and the dissimilarities that exist are enough to make humans distinct from troglodyte and pan paniscus chimps.  You simply cannot cherrypick the traits or evolutionary history we share and establish exactness.

As I've stated earlier, animal behaviors cannot be assessed with a moral scope, especially one that is applied to humans only.  Insects, from what science knows now, do not have belief in a God or Gods.  They are not expected of anything except of what their instincts guide them with.  In other words, humans are simply held to different standards, both by nature and God.  Christians believe that specifically humans were made in God's image, and not animals.  To suggest that God is amoral because there are different standards for different species is a vast oversimplification.

Yet the similarities between us and our close relatives are there, no? Which means if humans are made in 'gods' image then apes are made almost in gods image and lemurs almost but less so and so on. Of course you know that in fact it's the other way around. You also know that we are not the end; that we will (if the conditions are met) continue to evolve at which point, presumably we will not be in gods image any more.

Just because two things are similar doesn't mean they're the same.  Homo sapiens are not chimps and chimps are not homo sapiens, so "made almost in God's image" doesn't cut it.  And just because we are not the end stage of evolution does not mean the same morals won't apply to those in the next stage of evolution.  Whether they will or not remains to be seen.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not forcing you to believe that we are.  And heck, maybe somewhere there is another species that was made in God's image.  All I can say about that is Christianity was made specifically for humanity.  Its laws do not pertain to other life forms.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If different species of life each having its own set of morals or instincts is part of God's grand plan, we cannot question that if they all tie in and work together.  Nature, in a way, is like a machine with cogs mashing together to sustain itself.  Even if you believe its existence is the result of a totally random happenstance, the fact that each species of animal operates by its own laws and standards is why nature works the way it does.

No one who believes that morality comes from God tries to confine Him within a fixed morality, but proclaim that XYZ are the moral laws that God wants us to assign to ourselves to have life, and to live it abundantly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It certainly would be part of God's will for all His creatures to exist, but humans carry the burden of existing morally and selflessly to prolong our existence.  Christianity rejects "eye for an eye" mentality and embraces "turning the other cheek."  Acting in a way that is beneficial to one, yet detrimental to another goes in violation of that law.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It certainly would be part of God's will for all His creatures to exist, but humans carry the burden of existing morally and selflessly to prolong our existence.  Christianity rejects "eye for an eye" mentality and embraces "turning the other cheek."  Acting in a way that is beneficial to one, yet detrimental to another goes in violation of that law.

Who says existing morally is a burden?  Not I. If anything morality exists to ease our lives by providing a guide to decision making in the presence of incomplete information.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

It certainly would be part of God's will for all His creatures to exist, but humans carry the burden of existing morally and selflessly to prolong our existence.  Christianity rejects "eye for an eye" mentality and embraces "turning the other cheek."  Acting in a way that is beneficial to one, yet detrimental to another goes in violation of that law.

Who says existing morally is a burden?  Not I. If anything morality exists to ease our lives by providing a guide to decision making in the presence of incomplete information.

Burden in the sense of something we are required to carry that other members of the animal kingdom are not.  Morality has certainly improved the human experience and I would never dispute that.