[Philboid Studge]

thomastwo wrote

First, in almost all societies in all times there has been the concept of morality. Regardless of our differing opinions on relative or absolute morality, I think you'll agree that the purpose of morality is to describe how we ought to behave. Morality makes no sense at all unless there is a difference between how we know we ought to behave and how we actually do behave.

Before I agree to the purpose of morality, we would need to agree on what morality means. I've been in search of a complete but pithy definition for some time, and so far I have not done better than Jonathan Haidt's (U. of Virginia psychologist): "interlocking sets of values, practices, institutions, and evolved psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible." (This is in fact his definition of moral systems.) I would add that "evolved psychological mechanisms" include much emotional content, and as such there is no guarantee that a moral precept, or an expression of a society's morality, will be rational.

Second, by observation of the world in general I see that people lie, and steal and fight.

Most people, by my observations, do not do these things. Therefore, most people are not in need of saving?

I see that divorce is caused by people's inability to keep a vow and find a compromise.

I don't see this as a moral issue. Nor do I think it's always wrong to break a promise. (In many cases it would be far worse to keep a bad promise.) Similarly, I wouldn't compromise my position under all circumstances.

I see wars fought caused by people's inability to make and keep agreements, and by greed for resources. I don't see any society or people that say that these things are good or how the world ought to be.

There have been many societies who feel that their particular excellence gives them the right to extract resources wherever they find them, and at the point of a gun. I live in such a society. Further, war is often glorified, and soldiers are routinely elevated to heroic pedestals. In some societies, the warrior ethic is the highest ideal.

And to be clear I apply this argument equally to myself. You say that there is some weakness in people who can't live lives in accordance with their conscience. I agree but I note that I am weak.

I did not say so. (I said I found it sad.)

And weak in a way that I can't change even by my own efforts. Maybe you are different and either you didn't do any of that lying, stealing or cheating that I referred to above, or maybe you don't acknowledge that those are things that you ought not do ?

I'm very sorry that you can't change your ways through your own efforts. I suppose I must concede this is indeed a "weakness," especially if, as you say, you really want to change. If it's true that your own efforts are ineffectual in this regard, and if you are not alone in this failure to behave morally on your own accord, then I hope you and, presumably other Christians, continue to rely on a deity to keep you line.