If you are a non- believer in, all that you do is being recorded in the heavens, why be moral when no one is looking?
If there are no records and no witness, why not do anything you want?
If no one sees you do it, then is it a deed not done?
If all of this is true, then why do we have a conscience, where did it come.
We are told in scriptures that our conscience is our natural way of doing God's will in the absence of his Law.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
So just because you have lose moral values & need someone to watch over you to behave doesn't mean other do.
I think, the Law of the land and a conscience, will suffice the law abiding majority.
But I see these as God emulations. Something not found in the animal kingdom.
Among primates you will see a social structure, however this social structure is instinctively driven. So in the absence of morality there is order.
Among Amazon indians you will see a variety of social structures and the prevalence of conscienceness in action and the tribal law that aligns with Judeo-Christian ethics in principle but not entirely in practice.
But conscience isn't divine. It is a product of the human brain.
But it is fodder for Theist that contend, man, but not animals are made in the image of God, because we have a conscience.
What makes you think animals don't have a conscience?
An interesting area of research in this context concerns the similarities between our relationships and those ofanimals, whether animals in human society (pets, working animals, even animals grown for food) or in the wild. One idea is that as people or animals perceive a social relationship as important to preserve, their conscience begins to respect that former "other", and urge actions that protect it. Similarly, in complex territorial and cooperative breeding birdcommunities (such as the Australian magpie) that have a high degree of etiquettes, rules, hierarchies, play, songs and negotiations, rule-breaking seems tolerated on occasions not obviously related to survival of the individual or group; behaviour often appearing to exhibit a touching gentleness and tenderness.
Just various views on that link. Most notably Charles Darwin's view.
These are just ideas being kicked around as an explanation and purely speculative and the list of citations on the subject matter is probably endless.
Oh, so views of scientists working on the topic are speculative, but words written by men a couple of thousand years are divine, even though science, time & again, has proven them wrong.
No one is able to define the word "conscience" is a way that makes it testable. So it's no wonder that we can't prove it exists in animals. We can't even prove it exists in humans!!!!
DEFINE YOUR WORDS.
You could use the argument of "ideas being kicked around" as applied to the laws of gravity. One could argue that this law is speculative because in the twisted logic of Acquinas, if you can conceive of a world that doesn't employ this law, that world has to exist. This is madness. Scientific consensus doesn't consider evolution to be speculative without rigorous empirical data to back it up. It's (in Dawkins words) a "theorum". What isn't proved here is the endless biblical and religious citations by so-called learned people.
What makes you think we are the only creatures made in the image of “god”? If we are an image of god, then so is every other creature on this planet, we all share bits of the same dna and base organic compounds, our organs are very similar, oh yeah, and did god evolve? Because we did, the perfect image of god. I’m getting of topic but my point is that if the argument you are making is based on the premise that the reason we have a conscience is because we were made in his image... that doesn’t hold a strong argument.
We have a conscience because we are self aware, self aware of ourselves, each other and our actions. And if you want to really simplify it, isn’t a conscience essentially an evolved survival instinct? When does it bother us? When we do something that we deem "wrong." But why is that? Probably because most of the time when you commit a "wrong," it will lead to events that will harm the individual committing said action or someone close who will affect them by proxy. And survival and self-preservation is one of the strongest instincts in any creature. I know it’s more complex than that, but everything has a base, a foundation that started the evolution of any work in progress or end product, so why is it then improbable that that is all a conscience is? As our brain evolved, so did our emotions, and ultimately guilt is an emotion. So if this is true... a conscience doesn’t come from a god, it comes from evolution and human nature. Why is it that people who are sociopaths typically don’t show any guilt? Could one of the reasons be because their brain handles emotions differently?
Moralities are relative, look at any religious book and compare them with another and you can find that out for yourself. What is moral and just to one group is horrid and atrocious to another. Morals are our way of coping and existing in a social society. It is morally acceptable in some groups to kill another person just because they don’t think the exact same thing as them (any religion). So if morals come from a god, fuck I don’t want any. Any person who needs a constant imaginary babysitter so they won’t commit heinous immoral acts is a dangerous person and I want nothing to do with them. Why don’t I do whatever I want (form an immoral standpoint) when no one is looking? Because I’m human and that’s just a stupid motion that all reason, logic and decency will disappear when I’m alone. I still have to live with myself, which alone is reason enough.
The operative here is still a conscience of which I contend is created by God. Animals do not evolve a conscience in a survival of the fittest scheme. This is a perplexing enigma among many social scientist.