In game theory there is a concept known as tit-for-tat. It demonstrates that in a competitive two participant system, defensive non-aggression is the optimal strategy.
These principles are borne out in nature and can be observed in competition between organisms when no clear advantage exists which would incentivize a first move.
The foundational concept of morality (that it is wrong for one human to kill another human) undoubtedly grew out of evolutionary selection around these principles.
But game theory only offers weak proofs. Philosophers required more... concrete arguments. Hence: god.
We created god to serve as a source of absolute morality. A foundation not based on the fuzzy logic of statistics (which is more than sufficient to guide biology over many iterations; it's good enough for animals I dunno why it isn't good enough for intellectuals but whatever), but absolutes that could apply to all regardless of individual circumstances.
Having created god, in order to empower god it is necessary to ascribe EVERYTHING to god. If you don't, god ceases to function as a tool.
So to answer your question... morality is of god, and your conscience is your personal experience of god.
Because tit-for-tat can only explain why it is better for two lions to avoid each other than to maul themselves until one is dead and the other near death. It says nothing about how the lion should deal with the gazelle.
Enlightened self interest has never been enough to dissuade those who KNOW they have an advantage. This is why the overwhelming majority of human history has been characterized by kratocracy.
Which is better? Men killing men to elevate themselves, or men killing men to elevate their god? The former will NEVER end. The latter... supposes that one day it potentially could end, when all are united in veneration of one god and accepting one morality (however bloody the trail may be to get there).
where's the proof
This is the wrong question. You're asking me to prove religion right and the moral nihilists wrong. I can't do this, and religion never set out to do this. Religion itself doesn't beat nihilists, because both religion and nihilism come from unassailable but ultimately untestable foundations. Faith is what beats the moral nihilists, and I can't give you that in words. Even the nihilists conviction that there is nothing beyond is a kind of faith, albeit a pessimistic one.
You either have the certainty in yourself that some things are fundamentally wrong, or you don't. Just as I have the certainty in myself that if someone says they DON'T have that certainty, I am certain THEY are lying.
I do not believe for an instant that you believe the nihilists are right (that nothing is fundamentally moral or immoral). You wouldn't be here if you did.
i know we as humans made it up
If we "made it up" then the nihilists are right.
Look, this is a CHOICE. If you "know" morality is made up, then all your feelings about what is right and wrong are just you. If you "know" some things are fundamentally right or wrong, then that has to transcend you in order to be projected onto others, it can't just be something made up.
It is YOUR CHOICE to acknowledge a higher source of moral truth in order to give your moral judgements greater weight than your own disapproval. Only the divine can transcend you and encompass your enemies.
In game theory there is a concept known as tit-for-tat. It demonstrates that in a competitive two participant system, defensive non-aggression is the optimal strategy.
These principles are borne out in nature and can be observed in competition between organisms when no clear advantage exists which would incentivize a first move.
The foundational concept of morality (that it is wrong for one human to kill another human) undoubtedly grew out of evolutionary selection around these principles.
But game theory only offers weak proofs. Philosophers required more... concrete arguments. Hence: god.
We created god to serve as a source of absolute morality. A foundation not based on the fuzzy logic of statistics (which is more than sufficient to guide biology over many iterations; it's good enough for animals I dunno why it isn't good enough for intellectuals but whatever), but absolutes that could apply to all regardless of individual circumstances.
Having created god, in order to empower god it is necessary to ascribe EVERYTHING to god. If you don't, god ceases to function as a tool.
So to answer your question... morality is of god, and your conscience is your personal experience of god.
Because tit-for-tat can only explain why it is better for two lions to avoid each other than to maul themselves until one is dead and the other near death. It says nothing about how the lion should deal with the gazelle.
Enlightened self interest has never been enough to dissuade those who KNOW they have an advantage. This is why the overwhelming majority of human history has been characterized by kratocracy.
Which is better? Men killing men to elevate themselves, or men killing men to elevate their god? The former will NEVER end. The latter... supposes that one day it potentially could end, when all are united in veneration of one god and accepting one morality (however bloody the trail may be to get there).
This is the wrong question. You're asking me to prove religion right and the moral nihilists wrong. I can't do this, and religion never set out to do this. Religion itself doesn't beat nihilists, because both religion and nihilism come from unassailable but ultimately untestable foundations. Faith is what beats the moral nihilists, and I can't give you that in words. Even the nihilists conviction that there is nothing beyond is a kind of faith, albeit a pessimistic one.
You either have the certainty in yourself that some things are fundamentally wrong, or you don't. Just as I have the certainty in myself that if someone says they DON'T have that certainty, I am certain THEY are lying.
I do not believe for an instant that you believe the nihilists are right (that nothing is fundamentally moral or immoral). You wouldn't be here if you did.
If we "made it up" then the nihilists are right.
Look, this is a CHOICE. If you "know" morality is made up, then all your feelings about what is right and wrong are just you. If you "know" some things are fundamentally right or wrong, then that has to transcend you in order to be projected onto others, it can't just be something made up.
It is YOUR CHOICE to acknowledge a higher source of moral truth in order to give your moral judgements greater weight than your own disapproval. Only the divine can transcend you and encompass your enemies.
if a lion could speak, we could not understand him