If you are a non- believer, why be moral when no one is looking?

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.

Views: 4106

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Michael, Jimmy Boy explained something very relevant to you very well, both in terms of your thinking and the questions you pose in this particular post. As I said to someone, I see this as an opportunity to sharpen my wits. I engaged you because you pose the questions more intelligently and with far more civility than we often hear from your side of the question. Anyway, I think you would do well to digest Jimmy's advice. Chew each bite twenty times.

As one of these social scientists I can assure that I do not find this at all perplexing.  You have been misinformed, probably by someone who had also been misinformed or just plain not understood what they had heard or read.

Social animals do, in fact, have a rudimentary "conscience".  They behave in a manner designed to protect their young and their species and to get along with the group.  There are many examples of animals "teaching" younger or other members of the group how to behave, and of punishing them if they don't conform. 


I guess if you, or your misinformed friends, are not aware of these facts then you and they could be taken in by the argument that you have just posted.  Please be aware that presenting this to a social scientist just makes you look very foolish and undermines your credibility.  I know what I and my colleagues think, and I know why.  You obviously do not.  Bad education is a very dangerous thing.

No question there are cliques of current knowledge through time and everyone operating outside of the paradigm is mocked and scorn even as you, a distinguished guest has done. But your are totally aware that there are other opinions, though I dare say we laymen must rely on wiki which isn't always accurate but helpful nonetheless. 

Michael many tests were performed on simians which proved that they didn't want to hurt another simian. In fact, they proved to be more 'merciful' than some people who were given the same test. ( which involved giving an electric jolt to another person.)

And why exactly would it matter behind closed doors when nobody is watching? Can you give an example of a moral failing that involves no second party? Simple robots running on a few kilobytes of code have been shown to quickly develop altruistic methods of achieving their collective pre-programmed goals. Are you suggesting that robots believe in god? Or do you think that maybe most elements of "morality" can be derived from simple logic and a wish to live in a functioning society? I'm going for the latter explanation, since it's the one supported by evidence, rather than wishful thinking & fairy tales.

The dilemma is that a conscience is diametrically oppose to the driver of evolution, survival of the fittest. If so, where does it come from. A respected scientist quoted in one thread cites the DNA, if so, how did it get there.

A respected scientist quoted in one thread cites the DNA, if so, how did it get there.

See here's the problem. You can't wrap around the fact that what we are today is on the back of millions of years of evolution.

You think that evolution means that something wasn't there & magically it popped into existence. That is not the case. Evolution is a slow process & takes many factors into account.

So to answer your question, it didn't get there. It evolved over many many years. There is a difference between the two. If you can't understand that then I'm sorry I can't help you.

This is assumed based on transitional forms that are found no where in the hominid paleontological record. And the Hominid branch is relatively recent. 

Again with the creationist transitional fossil BS. Again wrong. Read some real science and not your creationist nonsense


The fossil record is very extensive as far back as 3-4 million years:


Modern humans are about 2.5 million years old. At least half a dozen older species have been discovered in just the last decade, though it's yet unknown where exactly they fit


There is even evidence of human evolution on the timescale of a mere 3000 years:


No, conscience does not oppose evolution. For a start, you're mis-understanding 'survival of the fittest'. It does not mean 'The physically strongest individual of a group will survive', it means that those

I think his post got cut off. 

Sucks. Happens to me all the time.


Anyway. Survival of the fittest means the 'fittest' for whatever given niche the environment is lacking so that the particular function has an advantage. 

So 'fittest' in one organism isn't always the biggest or strongest or fastest. Sometimes it's the smartest. Sometimes it's the ability to better digest a given protein. Sometimes it's a natural immunity. Whatever the 'it' is that makes the organism the fittest is simply a vessel for outsourcing the competition and continuing to replicate. 

Things like compassion and altruistic behavior are found to be beneficial to the individual and the species over all. 

It could be that given enough time, creatures with that trait will propagate and breed out those without the advantage. 


One could only hope....

People will deliberately defy their conscience. Can we defined that as evil. Or is evil when we break the Law the Land?. Is evil just when you defy a Judeo-Christian ethic?.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service