Of gods and language.

[Peter]

Decent people yes Chris. But sadly there are hedonistic, debauched people who lack some morals- many will live a life of self gratification and materialism but even then would stop at murder...then you get those who'd stop at nothing to get what they want.




Well it is logical- an immoral debauched society fails ...eventually. Co operation and community keeps community together. We cannot exist alone.





He does, and makes sense what he says about morality. Atheism is not about living in an immoral fashion.Ever read anything about Percy Bysshe Shelley the Regency poet? He was an atheist and was all for social justice. This has been common with atheists and agnostics throughout history. Kant saw reason as natural.




There certainly is I think. Ever read Kant's Formulations? Human beings are quite capable of knowing what is beneficial, compassionate behaviour and what is not. Belief in gods is not a pre requisite for morality. Buddhism is an athiest philosophy and teaches morals of a high order.

I think the point you're missing Aeolian is not that we're saying atheists are immoral, better or any worse than many so called religious people, but that from an atheistic perspective there cannot be any such thing as good or evil. What to you is wrong may not be to someone else and who are you or I to say who is right? If your answer is simply 'because it's what I feel and believe', that's no good simply because another person will tell you he thinks it perfectly right to steal, be unfaithful and lie and you simply can't tell him he's 'wrong' only that you don't agree. The reason there is so much immorality in the world is precisely because people do justify themselves by their own standards and no atheist has any right to complain about the consequences because it is the logical outcome of their philosophy! Nietzsche wrote “God is dead”, and he saw where his logic led. He wrote that “our moral judgments and evaluations are only images and fantasies based on a physiological process unknown to us.” At least he was being honest about his beliefs in nothing.

You stated to Chris "But sadly there are hedonistic, debauched people who lack some morals- many will live a life of self gratification and materialism but even then would stop at murder...then you get those who'd stop at nothing to get what they want." Firstly, from an atheist point of view who are you or I to judge them as 'immoral' and secondly from the atheistic perspective why shouldn't they live their lives like that if they want to? In an earlier thread you said it didn't matter if people were married or not, yet my father who is also an atheist would regard people living together as immoral! You see the problems with this moral relativism?

[AeolianHarp]

I think the point you're missing Aeolian is not that we're saying atheists are immoral, better or any worse than many so called religious people, but that from an atheistic perspective there cannot be any such thing as good or evil.

Of course there can and is! The laws of the land are based on secular laws- look at all the equal opportunities and anti racism laws that have come in the last few years. Even some animals know right from wrong- ever seen a guily expression on a dog's face when he sneaks food from someone's plate and he knows he's not supposed to ? Atheists are quite capable of knowing what is right or wrong- many of them are working in social justice, for environmental issues, ending animal abuse, child abuse, and so on. They do not need to believe in any god to know what is harmful to others or not.

What to you is wrong may not be to someone else and who are you or I to say who is right? If your answer is simply 'because it's what I feel and believe', that's no good simply because another person will tell you he thinks it perfectly right to steal, be unfaithful and lie and you simply can't tell him he's 'wrong' only that you don't agree.

With respect Peter- people can say this about their religious beliefs- that their religion says one group of people is of less value than themselves such as homosexuals or black people. Remember many religions had no problem with enslaving people of different ethnic groups than themselves; some even called tribal people "savages".Most people know that stealing and so on is not acceptable behaviour- but in the past many people stole food as they were so poor, so not everything is black and white. It was injustice and greed of the elite that lead them to such desperate acts in the first place.

The reason there is so much immorality in the world is precisely because people do justify themselves by their own standards and no atheist has any right to complain about the consequences because it is the logical outcome of their philosophy!

It is not. In a profoundly religious Europe centuries ago there was immorality. There were more brothels in those days when intimacy between man and woman was considered "sinful" unless they were married. The brothels were a result of women being so poor and without well paid job opportunities, due to being seen as lesser than men. Some men said women didn't even have souls. The poor were half starved, hung publically if they stole food, women were beaten and denied equal rights, children were sent into mines working 12 hour days, Africans were enslaved and abused on plantations.

Nearly all of those perpatrators believed in god. Where was their morality? In fact it was some atheists like Percy Bysshe Shelley who called for a more caring and equal society. True, there were some Christian abolitionists, and well done to them, but what I am pointing out is that whether there is a belief in gods or not, immorality will still occur in society. It always has and always will to some degree or other. Believing in gods does not rid humans of immoral behaviour.

Nietzsche wrote “God is dead”, and he saw where his logic led. He wrote that “our moral judgments and evaluations are only images and fantasies based on a physiological process unknown to us.” At least he was being honest about his beliefs in nothing.

That is his view and atheism does not in itself lead to immorality.

You stated to Chris "But sadly there are hedonistic, debauched people who lack some morals- many will live a life of self gratification and materialism but even then would stop at murder...then you get those who'd stop at nothing to get what they want." Firstly, from an atheist point of view who are you or I to judge them as 'immoral' and secondly from the atheistic perspective why shouldn't they live their lives like that if they want to?

Well, I put this to you again- being atheist does not mean that we support cold, unfeeling, heinous acts. Many atheists are caring people with strong senses of justice- all the atheists I know are and go on many social justice marches, campaign for animal rights, ethical business practise, anti fracking camps and so on. People that commit monstrous crimes are usually psychopaths and of abnormal mental functioning. That can be seen in brain scans.

Atheism is not about letting people run amok- the secular laws are made in response to what is beneficial for human society. Of course they are not perfect, but there is no such thing as perfection; all we can do is strive to be mindful of our actions and life as good a life as we can. May I remind you that Tibet is an atheist society- bult on Buddhist principles and the people there are not a debauched immoral society- they have good values and although they are not perfect, all the morals you as a Christian would wish to uphold, they do too.

In an earlier thread you said it didn't matter if people were married or not, yet my father who is also an atheist would regard people living together as immoral! You see the problems with this moral relativism?

Your father grew up in a time when this was frowned upon, and this stems from that. Marriage is a contract that is legally binding- the law was bound into it in historic times- in pre historic/tribal times two committed people sharing a home was enough. Doesn't mean that those people back then were any less committed to each other, just because there was no ceremony or binding contract.


We have always had "moral relativism"- they may come from religious texts, beliefs or secular laws. There is no getting away from it- this has been discussed since the time of the ancient Greeks. Unless we all become programmed robots, there will always be different viewpoints.

Even animals can display moral/altrusitic behaviour.

Regarding Richard Dawkins- he has argued that behaving morally because one fears retribution from a god cannot be true morality:

“Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God's approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment? That's not morality, that's just sucking up, apple-polishing..."

When people do good just because they want to do good, that is morality.

I know a man who worked tirelessly for Friends of the Earth and is an atheist. I said to him once,"I really admire you because you are atheist and have no reason to do all the good you do, what is your impetus?"

He looked at me puzzled, said something like doing good is natural.

“Bush and bin Laden are really on the same side: the side of faith and violence against the side of reason and discussion. Both have implacable faith that they are right and the other is evil. Each believes that when he dies he is going to heaven. Each believes that if he could kill the other, his path to paradise in the next world would be even swifter. The delusional "next world" is welcome to both of them. This world would be a much better place without either of them. ”
Richard Dawkins

[Peter]

With respect AeolianHarp all that again misses the point - I have never said atheists aren't capable of good, only that there can be no logical definition of good under such a belief. Hitler thought he was doing good. Atheists doing good 'naturally' are closer to God than they know!

You quote Shelley as a moral example, yes he had some good ideals but didn't he also abandon a young girl having got her pregnant and didn't that result in her suicide? You might just as well mention William Wilberforce who as an evangelical Christian was also committed to reforms and dealing with injustice. The natural good you speak of whether in atheists or religious people of any faith comes from God whether they acknowledge it or not.

Yes my father did grow up in a time when not being married was frowned upon, that's my point - then it was right, now it isn't in society's eyes, so where is the reality of this right and wrong? From the atheist perspective Nietsche was correct and Hitler drew his own conclusions from this. What relative 'morality' really is is self-justification to do what you like. Your Dawkins quote could equally apply to Hitler and Stalin, except of course they didn't believe they'd get to heaven!

Christ preached that we should love one another - that many 'Christians' and people of no faith have ignored that down the ages doesn't invalidate his teaching, it only highlights our need for it.

[AeolianHarp]

With respect AeolianHarp all that again misses the point - I have never said atheists aren't capable of good, only that there can be no logical definition of good under such a belief. Hitler thought he was doing good. Atheists doing good 'naturally' are closer to God than they know!

Hitler could not possibly have thought mass murder was compassionate behaviour. Atheists don't believe in god so they are not close to what they don't believe in.

You quote Shelley as a moral example, yes he had some good ideals but didn't he also abandon a young girl having got her pregnant and didn't that result in her suicide? You might just as well mention William Wilberforce who as an evangelical Christian was also committed to reforms and dealing with injustice.

Nobody is perfect- Shelley was estranged from his wife and yes, she was pregnant, but he didn't leave her alone and penniless.I don't know how their marriage was ( not seen any great detail of it), but today they probably would have divorced- relationships don't always work out. Her suicide may have been nothing to do with her parting from Percy:

On 10 December 1816, the body of Shelley's estranged wife Harriet was found in an advanced state of pregnancy, drowned in the Serpentine in Hyde Park, London. Shelley had generously provided for her and their children in his will and had given her a monthly allowance as had her father. It is thought that Harriet, who had left her children with her sister Eliza and had been living alone under the name of Harriet Smith, mistakenly believed herself to have been abandoned by her new lover, 36-year-old, Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Maxwell, who had been deployed abroad, after a landlady refused to forward his letters to her.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_B...econd_marriage

The natural good you speak of whether in atheists or religious people of any faith comes from God whether they acknowledge it or not.

We will have to agree to disagree on that one Peter. The good things I do have nothing to do with god- they are my actions, my thoughts.

Yes my father did grow up in a time when not being married was frowned upon, that's my point - then it was right, now it isn't in society's eyes, so where is the reality of this right and wrong?

Some of that is cultural norms and social changes.

From the atheist perspective Nietsche was correct and Hitler drew his own conclusions from this. What relative 'morality' really is is self-justification to do what you like. Your Dawkins quote could equally apply to Hitler and Stalin, except of course they didn't believe they'd get to heaven!

Dawkins is well aware of heinous acts committed by all types of belief systems. Hitler was not exactly an atheist either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...f_Adolf_Hitler

Christ preached that we should love one another - that many 'Christians' and people of no faith have ignored that down the ages doesn't invalidate his teaching, it only highlights our need for it.

Buddha taught love and kindness 500 years before Jesus was said to have lived. Many spiritual teachers of communities in ancient times taught love and kindness- that is the natural human way. Those who teach otherwise are deranged- like Hitler. Love and kindness is not exclusive to Christianity. My atheist friends promote love and kindness and extend this to animals also.

[Megan]

Is it Buddhism that teaches reincarnation, like you come back as an animal?
What would be the point in that. Is it some kind of judgement?

[Chris]

Well it is logical- an immoral debauched society fails ...eventually. Co operation and community keeps community together. We cannot exist alone.

True enough, but this is just pragmatism. We can all agree that stealing is bad because society functions a lot better when we are not all going around taking whatever we want whenever we feel like it. But what happens when we discover that more people are better off if we are free to take what we wish from a small subset of the population? Is this moral, then, because society is better off as a whole? And what happens when things change over time, and it is no longer good for society to steal from this smaller subset of people? Is it then immoral?

[Dawkins] does, and makes sense what he says about morality.

What he says about morality makes no sense whatsoever. He knows there should be such a thing and tries to come up with a justification for it after the fact, but his philosophy makes it impossible. He tries to justify it through biology first. But in his mind, biological things have no ends in themselves, so there is no way to get to a true objective morality from there. There can only be the as-if morality I was talking about before. His other appeals are emotional, and emotion is not reason.

Atheism is not about living in an immoral fashion.Ever read anything about Percy Bysshe Shelley the Regency poet? He was an atheist and was all for social justice. This has been common with atheists and agnostics throughout history. Kant saw reason as natural.

As I said, it is certainly possible for an atheist to arrive at true objective morality - IF he is working from the correct philosophical foundation. The materialism of Dawkins and the other "new" atheists is not such a foundation.

Now Kant is another kind of thing, and this is important, because his philosophy has permeated the world, even in Christian and other theist circles. But there are serious questions we should raise about how Kant arrives at his morality. He says we are "autonomous" and "self-legislators", "ends in ourselves", and that a moral community is one which strives to create a "kingdom of ends." But this is highly problematic when trying to establish a system of true objective morality. That is a system that requires us to acknowledge the reality of the natural ends of things. And human beings are in no sense the source of the nature that determines our ends. It is nature - not the preferences, emotion, or even reason of a human being - that grounds the content of the moral law and gives it obligatory force.

One other point I would make is in response to this:

Even some animals know right from wrong- ever seen a guily expression on a dog's face when he sneaks food from someone's plate and he knows he's not supposed to?

I disagree. Animals cannot be capable of moral and immoral behavior. Morality is by definition the function of a rational creature, which (non-human) animals are not. They are not capable of knowing abstract concepts like good and purpose. I think you are anthropomorphising here. Yes, I remember that guilty look on my dog's face when he'd sneaked some food! But it wasn't because he was a moral creature. It was because he knew the pattern of what behavior was praised and what behavior was punished, and he knew which was coming! This is nothing more than the hope of reward and fear of punishment that Dawkins was attributing to theists as the source of their morality. And indeed, that would not be true morality! Morality, for the theist or atheist, can only truly exist on a philosophical foundation that does not appeal to mere consequences, either divine or human.

[AeolianHarp]

Is it Buddhism that teaches reincarnation, like you come back as an animal?
What would be the point in that. Is it some kind of judgement?

There are many schools of Buddhism and various ways of looking at reincarnation; Hinduism also teaches reincarnation. It is a complex subject and to do with karma- the actions one performed throughout life that determines where one goes after "death."

There is no outside judgement in Buddhism. Each of us must judge our own behaviour, motivations, actions.

[AeolianHarp]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AeolianHarp
Well it is logical- an immoral debauched society fails ...eventually. Co operation and community keeps community together. We cannot exist alone.

True enough, but this is just pragmatism. We can all agree that stealing is bad because society functions a lot better when we are not all going around taking whatever we want whenever we feel like it. But what happens when we discover that more people are better off if we are free to take what we wish from a small subset of the population? Is this moral, then, because society is better off as a whole? And what happens when things change over time, and it is no longer good for society to steal from this smaller subset of people? Is it then immoral?

I think you'll find that stealing is from the larger subset by the smaller subset!


[Dawkins] does, and makes sense what he says about morality.

What he says about morality makes no sense whatsoever. He knows there should be such a thing and tries to come up with a justification for it after the fact, but his philosophy makes it impossible. He tries to justify it through biology first. But in his mind, biological things have no ends in themselves, so there is no way to get to a true objective morality from there. There can only be the as-if morality I was talking about before. His other appeals are emotional, and emotion is not reason.

Fine emotions can lead to morality- when we encounter a suffering being and feel compassion and are thus motivated to assist them.

A few years ago I came across a weak Bumblebee lying on the pavement. Now, I was cycling and something made me look down- I sensed her preseence- this tiny little being. I put her on a leaf in my bag and took her home. I got a box, put leaves in it and some honey disolved in water and a blob of honey next to her. She crawled to the honey and ate some.

I could see that her wings were old and she kept trying to fly but wasn't doing so well. I knew she wanted to be outside, so I made her a leaf shelter outside and put her in it that night- I thought I'd give her the chance to try to get back to her Nest.

This went on for two days- with her crawling out of the leaf shelter overnight and trying to fly.The third day she was too weak to try and stayed in the box and passed away. I made her a coffin out of a matchbox and buried her. Why? you might ask. My heart went out to her- I felt compassion; I helped make her last few days more bearable instead of leaving her to die of hunger/thirst on a hard pavement.Nobody put this in me- it came from my own heart...I honoured her life- bees do so much for the eco system.

I am not trying to qualify for sainthood here by the way - just giving an example of how the heart and emotions can lead to moral acts and kindness.


Atheism is not about living in an immoral fashion.Ever read anything about Percy Bysshe Shelley the Regency poet? He was an atheist and was all for social justice. This has been common with atheists and agnostics throughout history. Kant saw reason as natural.

As I said, it is certainly possible for an atheist to arrive at true objective morality - IF he is working from the correct philosophical foundation. The materialism of Dawkins and the other "new" atheists is not such a foundation.

Now Kant is another kind of thing, and this is important, because his philosophy has permeated the world, even in Christian and other theist circles. But there are serious questions we should raise about how Kant arrives at his morality. He says we are "autonomous" and "self-legislators", "ends in ourselves", and that a moral community is one which strives to create a "kingdom of ends." But this is highly problematic when trying to establish a system of true objective morality. That is a system that requires us to acknowledge the reality of the natural ends of things. And human beings are in no sense the source of the nature that determines our ends. It is nature - not the preferences, emotion, or even reason of a human being - that grounds the content of the moral law and gives it obligatory force.

We give our lives meaning by the acts we do.

One other point I would make is in response to this:

Even some animals know right from wrong- ever seen a guily expression on a dog's face when he sneaks food from someone's plate and he knows he's not supposed to?

I disagree. Animals cannot be capable of moral and immoral behavior. Morality is by definition the function of a rational creature, which (non-human) animals are not. They are not capable of knowing abstract concepts like good and purpose. I think you are anthropomorphising here. Yes, I remember that guilty look on my dog's face when he'd sneaked some food! But it wasn't because he was a moral creature. It was because he knew the pattern of what behavior was praised and what behavior was punished, and he knew which was coming! This is nothing more than the hope of reward and fear of punishment that Dawkins was attributing to theists as the source of their morality. And indeed, that would not be true morality! Morality, for the theist or atheist, can only truly exist on a philosophical foundation that does not appeal to mere consequences, either divine or human.

Animals cannot be rational? They can show compassion and some, like cetaceans and apes, have very high levels of self awareness. I know about this as I studied animal communcation and behaviour as part of my studies into human evolution, hominids and human language evolution at university.

Animals understand far more than we give them credit for. They are not lesser beings, just different.

I would like to tell you a true story about a dog.

A woman had a dog called Rex. She used to walk him by a railway line. One day he ran off- this was not his usual behaviour- in fact he never had done so before. And to her horror he went and sat on the railway line- and a train was approaching! As she screamed his name, he looked at her right in the eyes, but didn't move. The train came and Rex was no more.

Then a trembling young woman came over to the woman and said that Rex had saved her life as she was about to commit suicide by throwing herself on the line. Rex knew. How could he know? How could such selfless altruistic behaviour come from a "mere animal"? Could you honestly say you would have been so heroic? I couldn't. This dog was special. He had a soul, a big heart, love, showed great courage.

It is now being realised that animals are far more like us than we previously gave them credit for. Like us, they love, have fears, lies and dislikes, personalities....and they can understand right from wrong at times.

Animals Are Moral Creatures, Scientist Argues

The book, "Can Animals Be Moral?" (Oxford University Press, October 2012), suggests social mammals such as rats, dogs and chimpanzees can choose to be good or bad. And because they have morality, we have moral obligations to them, said author Mark Rowlands, a University of Miami philosopher.

"Animals are owed a certain kind of respect that they wouldn't be owed if they couldn't act morally," Rowlands told LiveScience.

Moral behavior?

Some research suggests animals have a sense of outrage when social codes are violated. Chimpanzees may punish other chimps for violating certain rules of the social order, said Marc Bekoff, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Colorado, Boulder, and co-author of "Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals" (University Of Chicago Press, 2012).

Male bluebirds that catch their female partners stepping out may beat the female, said Hal Herzog, a psychologist at Western Carolina University who studies how humans think about animals.

And there are many examples of animals demonstrating ostensibly compassionate or empathetic behaviors toward other animals, including humans. In one experiment, hungry rhesus monkeys refused to electrically shock their fellow monkeys, even when it meant getting food for themselves. In another study, a female gorilla named Binti Jua rescued an unconscious 3-year-old (human) boy who had fallen into her enclosure at the Brookline Zoo in Illinois, protecting the child from other gorillas and even calling for human help. And when a car hit and injured a dog on a busy Chilean freeway several years ago, its canine compatriot dodged traffic, risking its life to drag the unconscious dog to safety.

http://www.livescience.com/24802-ani...rals-book.html

Animals are our equals, just different beings. Infinite diversity in infinite combinations.

[Chris]

Fine emotions can lead to morality- when we encounter a suffering being and feel compassion and are thus motivated to assist them.

...

I am not trying to qualify for sainthood here by the way - just giving an example of how the heart and emotions can lead to moral acts and kindness.

Certainly emotions can lead to morally good acts. But that does not explain why those acts are morally good. Obviously they are not good because one felt emotionally compelled to do them. People are emotionally compelled to murder as well. The question is what makes those things good or bad.

We give our lives meaning by the acts we do.

I do not know what you mean by "meaning." Our choices may lead to lives of greater or lesser significance, in some sense. But is that the only meaning of our lives? Is the life of someone who has been badly crippled from birth, unable to move, unable even to speak, and thus unable to act, meaningless? I do not think so. I think the "meaning" of a life lies fundamentally in its nature.

Animals cannot be rational? They can show compassion and some, like cetaceans and apes, have very high levels of self awareness.

No, animals cannot be rational. They lack the ability to conceive of abstract concepts and reason from one to another.

All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Therefore, Socrates is mortal

Animals cannot conceive of something like man or mortality. They can recognize individual men. They have instincts that help keep them alive. But they do not reason.

I would like to tell you a true story about a dog.

...

This is merely anecdotal. Even if it is true as reported, how do we know that Rex was not responding to some sort of stimulus that was unrelated to the woman? Or that he was instinctively reacting in a certain way to something he perceived from her? And even if he deliberately sacrificed himself for her, on what basis would we conclude that that was a moral choice instead of the result of instinctual behavior? Self-sacrificing behavior could be very beneficial to a species (say, a mother for the sake of her young), and could breed true through generations.

These examples do not show that animals understand abstract concepts and so can comprehend the natures of things, nor that they can understand what ends those natures imply, nor that they can know what is good or bad for a thing based on those ends, nor that they posses the capacity to make a choice to do or not do a thing based on that knowledge.

If that were true, then the opposite should be true. Do we say a dog has done something immoral when he mauls a child? Or when a chimp kills another chimp? Or when a blue jay steals the eggs out of another nest? Of course not. We say that they are acting on instinct. If they were capable of making moral choices, we should be putting them on trial for these things.

[Harvey]

The reason that anyone knows right from wrong apart from the Bible:
"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law ... they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts..." --Romans 2:14,15 NIV84

[Peter]

Hitler could not possibly have thought mass murder was compassionate behaviour.

He (and many others) thought he was doing the 'right' thing for the world by exterminating Jews and other 'undesirables'. From an atheistic perspective you can't argue he was 'wrong' to think that way, only that it offends your own or your society's values - if you consider that it is for the greater 'good' of the human race to eliminate certain elements then you can justify your actions. Therein lies the danger.

Atheists don't believe in god so they are not close to what they don't believe in.

Not believing is not the same as being unaware.

Nobody is perfect- Shelley was estranged from his wife and yes, she was pregnant, but he didn't leave her alone and penniless.

He left his pregnant wife for another woman and yes today he would probably divorce - all very 'moral' by today's standards. I think a better word is selfish. If a person dumped an animal for another one he preferred you would presumably be horrified?

We will have to agree to disagree on that one Peter. The good things I do have nothing to do with god- they are my actions, my thoughts.

Like you also made yourself and have full control over your life? You have choices and the natural good in us is our conscience as Harvey says quoting St.Paul, 'engraved on our hearts'. Evil exists only as a perversion of what is naturally good, in other words a rebellion against the natural order.

Some of that is cultural norms and social changes.

Precisely - this right and wrong you talk about in atheism are variable depending on where and when you live, in other words they cannot exist of themselves. From the Christian point of view that isn't true - there is objective morality.

Buddha taught love and kindness 500 years before Jesus was said to have lived. Many spiritual teachers of communities in ancient times taught love and kindness- that is the natural human way. Those who teach otherwise are deranged- like Hitler. Love and kindness is not exclusive to Christianity. My atheist friends promote love and kindness and extend this to animals also.

Of course love isn't exclusive to Christianity, but neither is love of animals exclusive to atheism - Christians are perfectly capable of loving animals, think of St.Francis. I have two lovely cats that I adore and I'm also loathe to kill even a fly. In fact, Buddhism is generally considered to be not atheistic but agnostic, in that, the Buddha himself did not deny the existence of God.

[AeolianHarp]

Certainly emotions can lead to morally good acts. But that does not explain why those acts are morally good. Obviously they are not good because one felt emotionally compelled to do them. People are emotionally compelled to murder as well. The question is what makes those things good or bad.

People have gone over this theme for centuries and they will do centuries to come. It is not that difficult really what is good or bad- good brings happiness, seeks to bring happiness, kindness and so on, bad causes physical pain, seeks to bring hurt and upset to others, likes to make others suffer. We don't need gods to tell us what is good and bad. And the god of the old testament is not exactly moral- people are told to kill and this god is angry.

You are looking for absolutes- and that is a mistake- there are no absolutes- there are only relatives. If Bob pushes Jim over for no reason he is being mean, if Bob pushes Jim over to stop a car running him over then he is being helpful. Intent is important.

People took the "moral" commandment do not steal to the absolute which meant hanging starving children for stealing a loaf of bread. Children even a mere 150 years ago were thrown in prison for stealing food due to abject poverty. See how absolutes can lead to wicked acts? Relativism allows for us to see things in a wider way.

I do not know what you mean by "meaning." Our choices may lead to lives of greater or lesser significance, in some sense. But is that the only meaning of our lives? Is the life of someone who has been badly crippled from birth, unable to move, unable even to speak, and thus unable to act, meaningless? I do not think so. I think the "meaning" of a life lies fundamentally in its nature.

If one enjoys a sunset, a concert, creates art and so forth that gives someone's life meaning. I would argue that someone who is as extremely disabled as you describe cannot enjoy life the same- I have worked with such people are they often show distress. Life for life's sake doesn't always lead to happiness for such individuals.

No, animals cannot be rational. They lack the ability to conceive of abstract concepts and reason from one to another.Animals cannot conceive of something like man or mortality. They can recognize individual men. They have instincts that help keep them alive. But they do not reason.

Until you can see inside a cetacean's or ape's head that you cannot know that for sure. They are highly intelligent. Intelligence is over rated anyway- look at what "human intelligence" has led to- creating weapons, racism, idelogies that lead to war and poverty. In many ways animals are our superiors.

This is merely anecdotal. Even if it is true as reported, how do we know that Rex was not responding to some sort of stimulus that was unrelated to the woman? Or that he was instinctively reacting in a certain way to something he perceived from her? And even if he deliberately sacrificed himself for her, on what basis would we conclude that that was a moral choice instead of the result of instinctual behavior? Self-sacrificing behavior could be very beneficial to a species (say, a mother for the sake of her young), and could breed true through generations.

It is a true story- I still have a the magazine article, and there have been countless incidences of animals comitting selfless acts. Did you read the article that monkeys would not shock a fellow monkey even when there was a food reward in it for them? That shows the ability to empathasise. Buddhist scholars have acknowledged that animals can show compassion. Animals are not machines- they have thoughts and feelings too-humans often like to reduce animals to walking automotons- in this way they can justify torturing them in laboratories and factory farms.
Morals can arise from various impetuses- love, compassion, thoughts.

These examples do not show that animals understand abstract concepts and so can comprehend the natures of things, nor that they can understand what ends those natures imply, nor that they can know what is good or bad for a thing based on those ends, nor that they posses the capacity to make a choice to do or not do a thing based on that knowledge.

Some animals are capable of abstract concepts- elephants understand death- they mourn their dead and collect their bones. Apes use tools. But some human conceptual thinking is false and detrimental to our wellbeing, so I wouldn't laud it too much. We spend far too much time wasting our time in useless concepts and agonising over trite issues when we could be like the dog lying sunning herself, and just being present in the moment. Animals have much to teach us.

If that were true, then the opposite should be true. Do we say a dog has done something immoral when he mauls a child? Or when a chimp kills another chimp? Or when a blue jay steals the eggs out of another nest? Of course not. We say that they are acting on instinct. If they were capable of making moral choices, we should be putting them on trial for these things.

People have! An elephant was publically hung in the USA about 150 years ago for a "crime." We kill a a dog or bear who has killed a child, we beat animals when they don't submit to our will- so we do decide if their behaviour is good or not.

[Peter]

Is it Buddhism that teaches reincarnation, like you come back as an animal?
What would be the point in that. Is it some kind of judgement?

Buddhism is all over the place in what it believes - it really depends on what mood you're in. Like a lot of Christianity (and I suppose other religions) it is a supermarket where you pick and choose the bits you like.

At it's heart it is good and has much truth and very decent ethical values - the Dalai Lama is well intentioned enough, but he is ambivalent on much, often contradictory and frequently evasive. He of course only represents the Tibetan school of Buddhism, there are many others.

[AeolianHarp]

The reason that anyone knows right from wrong apart from the Bible:
"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law ... they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts..." --Romans 2:14,15 NIV84

There are and have been people in this world who are illterate and live in remote tribes, never heard of Christianity, but are still capable of good, moral, loving behaviour. People can and are good, moral, lving, kind without god or knowing the bible.

[Peter]

There are and have been people in this world who are illterate and live in remote tribes, never heard of Christianity, but are still capable of good, moral, loving behaviour. People can and are good, moral, lving, kind without god or knowing the bible.

We're all agreed on this - we only disagree where it comes from!