the moral chicken and egg

[tommyjones]

found this article online today
Babies gravitate toward good Samaritans, study says - Yahoo! News

it indicates that babies, before they can speak, recognize good acts and identify with good samaritains.

Considering our discussion of a week or so ago about where morals come from. I would suggest this indicates we are all born with inate morals that have lead to the developement of religious morals, not the other way around.

 

[wxtornado]

found this article online today
Babies gravitate toward good Samaritans, study says - Yahoo! News

it indicates that babies, before they can speak, recognize good acts and identify with good samaritains.

Considering our discussion of a week or so ago about where morals come from. I would suggest this indicates we are all born with inate morals that have lead to the developement of religious morals, not the other way around.

I provided a link to a very similar story from the UK Guardian about a week ago. Indeed, no deities or religion needed for morals.............

 

[This_person]

I provided a link to a very similar story from the UK Guardian about a week ago. Indeed, no deities or religion needed for morals.............

Indeed you did post this. And, again, it does not show anything about morals. The instinct for self-preservation through recognizing a "friend" or "foe", maybe. But, not a thing in there about morals.

"In any species that needs to cooperate as much as humans do … we always need to know who might be a good cooperator and who might not," says Ms. Hamlin.​

"We don't think this says that babies have any morality but it does seem an essential piece of morality to feel positive about those who do good things and negative about those who do bad things - it seems like an important piece of a later more rational and moral system."​

She's saying the instinct to recognize negatively aggressive behavior might be a piece of morality later. I'm not sure where that thought comes from, nor if she understands the dictionary definition of morality, but she's describing the same thing you do. She describes a self serving instinct to recognize someone who can help in the survival of the infant. She does not recognize, test, nor in any way describe anything that has anything to do with morality. I do recognize where she describes it as a precursor to "rational" thought, but not "morality".

Previous research has shown that babies in the first six months of life show preferences for others based on the attractiveness of their face.

But it is not until the age of 18 months that toddlers are true social creatures, and will cooperate with others of their own accord.​

Hmmmm

 

[somdprincess]

Indeed you did post this. And, again, it does not show anything about morals. The instinct for self-preservation through recognizing a "friend" or "foe", maybe. But, not a thing in there about morals.

"In any species that needs to cooperate as much as humans do … we always need to know who might be a good cooperator and who might not," says Ms. Hamlin.​

"We don't think this says that babies have any morality but it does seem an essential piece of morality to feel positive about those who do good things and negative about those who do bad things - it seems like an important piece of a later more rational and moral system."​

She's saying the instinct to recognize negatively aggressive behavior might be a piece of morality later. I'm not sure where that thought comes from, nor if she understands the dictionary definition of morality, but she's describing the same thing you do. She describes a self serving instinct to recognize someone who can help in the survival of the infant. She does not recognize, test, nor in any way describe anything that has anything to do with morality. I do recognize where she describes it as a precursor to "rational" thought, but not "morality".

Previous research has shown that babies in the first six months of life show preferences for others based on the attractiveness of their face.

But it is not until the age of 18 months that toddlers are true social creatures, and will cooperate with others of their own accord.​

Hmmmm

 

[This_person]

I provided a link to a very similar story from the UK Guardian about a week ago. Indeed, no deities or religion needed for morals.............

This is posted in two threads, and shown in two threads to not even be what the researchers concluded. And, twice ignored by the people claiming it.

Is there a reason you don't respond to me when I point out the researcher says, "We don't think this says that babies have any morality..."?

 

[libby]

Well it seems to me that being made in the image and likeness of God explains, rather nicely, being drawn to the good. The Lord did say that we are to be like little children, and I submit that sin (and the perceived benefit of committing it) is what changes us as we age.
No amount of elitist research can explain away the Almighty.

 

[somdprincess]

Well it seems to me that being made in the image and likeness of God explains, rather nicely, being drawn to the good. The Lord did say that we are to be like little children, and I submit that sin (and the perceived benefit of committing it) is what changes us as we age.
No amount of elitist research can explain away the Almighty.

We are all drawn from the image of God. That means good or bad people. I think this has nothing to do with morals.

How many children have been decieved into trusing the wrong person?
Many

 

[libby]

We are all drawn from the image of God. That means good or bad people. I think this has nothing to do with morals.

How many children have been decieved into trusing the wrong person?
Many

My point is that the "innate morals" that the OP says we are born with do, indeed, come from God. His post seems to say that the research proves that we are born with a moral code that can be separated from God, that somehow we are good in our own right. I'm trying to give the credit for any draw to good back where it belongs, to God.
Now I may be misunderstanding the point the OP is trying to make, but it sounds like a denial of God to me, hence my defense.

 

[tommyjones]

My point is that the "innate morals" that the OP says we are born with do, indeed, come from God. His post seems to say that the research proves that we are born with a moral code that can be separated from God, that somehow we are good in our own right. I'm trying to give the credit for any draw to good back where it belongs, to God.
Now I may be misunderstanding the point the OP is trying to make, but it sounds like a denial of God to me, hence my defense.

i never said it was separate from god, only that it exists without religion.

religion is not the cause of morality being the point

 

[fredcaudle]

i never said it was separate from god, only that it exists without religion.

religion is not the cause of morality being the point

I'm not arguing your point... but an additional question from your comment comes to mind as possibly circular... , "does religion exist separate from a god?"

 

[This_person]

i never said it was separate from god, only that it exists without religion.

religion is not the cause of morality being the point

And, do you realize that the study you posted isn't even claimed by the researcher to say what you're saying it says?

"Morality" is based upon fundamental "rights" and "wrongs". What makes something right, and what makes something wrong, are rooted in religions. Religions are the foundation that make up the rules for what is right, and what is wrong.

Now, I know a lot of "nice" atheists, that do things that are beneficial to others. But, without a moral foundation, they're doing it not for "moral" reasons, but for reasons of their own.

Do you see the difference?

 

[Xaquin44]

And, do you realize that the study you posted isn't even claimed by the researcher to say what you're saying it says?

"Morality" is based upon fundamental "rights" and "wrongs". What makes something right, and what makes something wrong, are rooted in religions. Religions are the foundation that make up the rules for what is right, and what is wrong.

Now, I know a lot of "nice" atheists, that do things that are beneficial to others. But, without a moral foundation, they're doing it not for "moral" reasons, but for reasons of their own.

Do you see the difference?

Religion OR society.

Do you really think that without 'god' no one would do nice things?

also, everyone does things for reasons of their own. No exceptions.

 

[This_person]

Religion OR society.

I'm not following you. What would be society's foundation for what is right and what is wrong?

Do you really think that without 'god' no one would do nice things?

Actually, I posted just the exact opposite of that.

also, everyone does things for reasons of their own. No exceptions.

Right. The difference being what those reasons are based upon.

See, "morals" come from "right" and "wrong". Nice actions are just that. It's a semantics/definition kind of thing. "morals" have a basis, a foundation, a set of rules that come from something other than thin air. "Nice" is nice, but not moral.

 

[Xaquin44]

Actually, I posted just the exact opposite of that.Right. The difference being what those reasons are based upon.

then what is the problem?

 

[tommyjones]

And, do you realize that the study you posted isn't even claimed by the researcher to say what you're saying it says?

"Morality" is based upon fundamental "rights" and "wrongs". What makes something right, and what makes something wrong, are rooted in religions. Religions are the foundation that make up the rules for what is right, and what is wrong.

Now, I know a lot of "nice" atheists, that do things that are beneficial to others. But, without a moral foundation, they're doing it not for "moral" reasons, but for reasons of their own.

Do you see the difference?

Religion and morals are not the same thing, nor do morals come from religion.

Aethist have a moral foundation, they just dont have a religious one.


morals are what make up right and wrong according to YOU.

religion is what determines right and wrong according to god. (the one you have choosen)

do you see the difference?

 

[This_person]

Religion and morals are not the same thing, nor do morals come from religion.

Aethist have a moral foundation, they just dont have a religious one.


morals are what make up right and wrong according to YOU.

religion is what determines right and wrong according to god. (the one you have choosen)

do you see the difference?

Let me see if I can make this more clear:

mor·al mawr-uhl
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.


See, morals are not about society's rules, custom, "nice", legalities. Morals have a foundation in fundamental priciples. Society makes rules like laws and customs, not morals.

I'm saying it's a semantics thing. It's a definition thing. You can believe an atheist is acting morally, but then you're putting some religious standard on to how the atheist is acting. You can say the atheist is acting "good", and now you can put society's standard on how the atheist is acting.

Am I clearing it up?

 

[This_person]

then what is the problem?

No problem, really. It's a nit-picky kind of thing.

Atheists do not act within "morals", because they don't have any. They have society's rules of conduct, but those aren't "morals". That doesn't mean they act incorrectly, just not out of morals.

 

[Xaquin44]

those are two different definations.

 

[tommyjones]

Let me see if I can make this more clear:

mor·al mawr-uhl
–adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.


See, morals are not about society's rules, custom, "nice", legalities. Morals have a foundation in fundamental priciples. Society makes rules like laws and customs, not morals.

I'm saying it's a semantics thing. It's a definition thing. You can believe an atheist is acting morally, but then you're putting some religious standard on to how the atheist is acting. You can say the atheist is acting "good", and now you can put society's standard on how the atheist is acting.

Am I clearing it up?

i dont see religion ANYWHERE in that definition...... so no, you are not making it clearer, you are muddying the waters.

morals do not come from religion, in fact, your definition suggests that laws and religion come from morals

 

[fredcaudle]

"morals do not come from religion"

So, religion did not come from man either? I mean if man made religion did he not also make morals - and isn't this man's combination of both???? (I don't believe what is being siad, I'm just trying to follow what is being said here by a couple of the posts.)