Good without God

Armanaziz

Salamun Alaikum.

Thank you brother for exploring this concept with me - I have also gone through all these in my mind - and believe it is quite fundamental that we investigate these concepts.

I'd like to draw attention to 2 comments from your earlier post

There is survivability on a macro scale, in which case, the individual's existence can be surrendered through personal sacrifice for the lives of others, strengthening the survivability of the species.

There is a inherent assumption behind the above statement that the cause of survival (or well-being) of many - is superior (or better) than the cause of survival (well-being) of one. This is a moral evaluation between two choices. But doesn't this assumption already requires a concept of "moral evaluation" independent of the question of survivality? From a purely materialistic point of view - where one believes existance begins at birth and ends at death - why should one be concerned about well being of others at the expense of well being of oneself? Why shouldn't maximizing the well-being (i.e. sensual pleasure) within one's lifetime be considered the ultimate goal of the life of an individual?

There are generic principles that are present under the moral umbrella throughout the world and throughout history clearly evident.

This is exactly what I am talking about - what is the genesis of these "generic moral principles" that seem to exist independent of time, place and society? Who decided these principles and why are we - human beings - bothered to uphold these principles?

Let's put some thoughts around this so that we can clarify in our mind what "Good" really means.

Regards,
Arman

unknownuser

Salamun Alaikum.

Thank you brother for exploring this concept with me - I have also gone through all these in my mind - and believe it is quite fundamental that we investigate these concepts.

I'd like to draw attention to 2 comments from your earlier post

There is survivability on a macro scale, in which case, the individual's existence can be surrendered through personal sacrifice for the lives of others, strengthening the survivability of the species.

There is a inherent assumption behind the above statement that the cause of survival (or well-being) of many - is superior (or better) than the cause of survival (well-being) of one. This is a moral evaluation between two choices. But doesn't this assumption already requires a concept of "moral evaluation" independent of the question of survivality? From a purely materialistic point of view - where one believes existance begins at birth and ends at death - why should one be concerned about well being of others at the expense of well being of oneself? Why shouldn't maximizing the well-being (i.e. sensual pleasure) within one's lifetime be considered the ultimate goal of the life of an individual?

There are generic principles that are present under the moral umbrella throughout the world and throughout history clearly evident.

This is exactly what I am talking about - what is the genesis of these "generic moral principles" that seem to exist independent of time, place and society? Who decided these principles and why are we - human beings - bothered to uphold these principles?

Let's put some thoughts around this so that we can clarify in our mind what "Good" really means.

Regards,
Arman

Walaykum assalam, dear brother.

I am very interested in this and would love to learn more, and I'm glad to have this conversation with you.

There is a symbiotic relationship between the individual and the society in which he lives. In the specific case of social injustice where one vows to sacrifice himself/herself for the betterment of society, we can still see the behavior as motivated by the individual. There are, among our species, individuals who do gain pleasure from helping others, despite it seeming outwardly as sacrifice. In terms of our relationship with others, we can think that experiencing pleasure selfishly may seem the most rational. However, this method can backfire, because we have the age-old concept of consequences. In fact there is interesting literature on "consequentialism" branch of secular morality studies which you might find interesting. The key is that we find the individual who can experience the most pleasure is the individual who is living in harmony with his/her neighbors. How much pleasure can one feel and for how long if he/she is apathetic towards those around him/her? What goes around comes around.
That's the beauty, my brother. Evolution. Natural selection has allowed these qualities to flourish as they have proven to be highly beneficial to the survival of the species. We are creatures of biology, and our instincts are more or less the same as other species survive and reproduce.

Salaam,
Bilal

Jafar

There is survivability on a macro scale, in which case, the individual's existence can be surrendered through personal sacrifice for the lives of others, strengthening the survivability of the species.

Human (and also some other species) has shown an in-built capabilities / tendencies for such act.

Yet, only within human we can also sees how such capabilities are being twisted.
Through the rituals of human sacrifice to the gods.
The 'victim' or 'the sacrifice' is considered as a 'hero' by their society, because their death shall please the gods.

Religion can really turn good people into evil..

From a purely materialistic point of view - where one believes existance begins at birth and ends at death - why should one be concerned about well being of others at the expense of well being of oneself?

There are religions who do not explains thus seems to have no concerns regarding 'the existence after death'.
Judaism is among them, there are no clear description in the Tanakh on 'existence after death'.
Is Judaism a 'purely materialistic point of view'??

Why shouldn't maximizing the well-being (i.e. sensual pleasure) within one's lifetime be considered the ultimate goal of the life of an individual?

Those who do are categorized as 'psychopath'.
And psychopath has been found lacking of Oxytocin.
They're now injecting Oxytocin as a 'treatment' for psychopath.

Why Some People Are Evil?
http//www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-moral-molecule/201109/why-some-people-are-evil

And feel to take this self-test to see how 'psycho' are you..
http//personality-testing.info/tests/LSRP.php

Albeit the small percentage of their presence in today's human population (~ 1%) once they took power they can influence other human to become as psychotic as they are.

There are generic principles that are present under the moral umbrella throughout the world and throughout history clearly evident.

This is exactly what I am talking about - what is the genesis of these "generic moral principles" that seem to exist independent of time, place and society? Who decided these principles and why are we - human beings - bothered to uphold these principles?

And across species as well.. Bonobo, Orangutan, Dog, Dolphin has been witnessed of capable doing "selfless act for the benefits / welfare of other species". Biologically wise the Oxytocine hormone exists on all mammals..

Thus as Dawkin said it's "hardwired" on SOME of us.
Psycopath is an exception..

Let's put some thoughts around this so that we can clarify in our mind what "Good" really means.

You may extend your research to seek out what "EVIL" really means, and why human turned EVIL.

Mr. Zimbardo is among the many researcher on that topic.
Philip Zimbardo The psychology of evil
https//www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil

Salam / Peace

Armanaziz

Walaykum assalam, dear brother.

I am very interested in this and would love to learn more, and I'm glad to have this conversation with you.

There is a symbiotic relationship between the individual and the society in which he lives. In the specific case of social injustice where one vows to sacrifice himself/herself for the betterment of society, we can still see the behavior as motivated by the individual. There are, among our species, individuals who do gain pleasure from helping others, despite it seeming outwardly as sacrifice. In terms of our relationship with others, we can think that experiencing pleasure selfishly may seem the most rational. However, this method can backfire, because we have the age-old concept of consequences. In fact there is interesting literature on "consequentialism" branch of secular morality studies which you might find interesting. The key is that we find the individual who can experience the most pleasure is the individual who is living in harmony with his/her neighbors. How much pleasure can one feel and for how long if he/she is apathetic towards those around him/her? What goes around comes around.
That's the beauty, my brother. Evolution. Natural selection has allowed these qualities to flourish as they have proven to be highly beneficial to the survival of the species. We are creatures of biology, and our instincts are more or less the same as other species survive and reproduce.

Salaam,
Bilal

Salam brother Bilal.

You are saying, some people find it more "enjoyable" to sacrifice their own life for the sake of others. Agreed - but a vast majority of us are not that motivated - but we still find these people "good" ... so irrespective of whether we ourselves find the selfless sacrifice enjoyable or not - we consider selfless sacrifice for certain causes as good. And when we are forced to make a poor moral choice - we recognize that we are accepting the bad - because our commitment for doing good is not strong enough to sacrifice material well-being after a certain point. This shows that what one considers enjoyable does not "define" what is good. So, I reject the notion that human morality is a subset of our survival instinct / basic biological instincts - rather it must be a totally different instinct which often functions in opposite direction to our survival instinct. When we see a group of muggers mugging a helpless passer-by, our survival instinct tell us to run and flee ? but our moral instinct tell us to engage and fight back.
So you mean - human evolution process has allowed these qualities to flourish? What brother Jafar added after you also indicates that ?morality? is built into human design. Yes, this is more acceptable and per my understanding the only possible explanation. Morality is not something we learn after our birth ? it is something we carry inside us from the time of our birth. We acquired the sense of morality as a unique "instinct" as a part of our evolution / creation - perhaps as part of our genetic makeup. Good and Bad cannot be mere illusions created by society, nor a mere extension of our survival instinct - we humans have an inherent basic sense of good and bad (unique to our species) built into ourselves. As an analogy, trees don?t have vision ? but creatures which possess the ability to move usually have a sense of vision which complements their movement ability. Ones which move in the dark has the sense of night vision - ones which move under water can sense under water. Just like our vision and hearing - human morality is a sense that we inherently poses to guide us in using the extremely powerful tool/ability we have - our intelligence.

This invariably leads me to the conclusion that whatever ?forces of nature? has created or evolved us ? the humans - must have had the ability to ascertain or define moral choices and building them into us. Recognition of this fact already puts ?the forces of nature? above blind mechanical processes ? this automatically implies a "judgemental aspect" - an intelligence behind the make-up of a human being - beyond and above anything we can define using our materialistic perspective - physics, chemistry and biology.

A human being - who submits himself to this sense of morality - i.e. has decided to uphold moral choices above any other biological instinct - is the one who has submitted to - the "greater designer" who created him/her - instead of his own physical instincts. It does not matter whether he calls this "greater designer" GOD or Allah or Brahman or forces of nature or Universal spirit or does not call by any name at all. In other words it is well possible to submit to the senses of good and bad ?God? created in us ? without actually believing or acknowledging ?God?. And that?s how believing (iman) gets distinct from being submissive (islam).

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Best regards,
Arman

P.S. Due to personal reasons I will take a longish break from this forum. For those of you who celebrate Eid... wish you a happy Eid.

muslims

Will they be saved?

They will be saved as the companions of the right. . .
They have the "end product", and even without the manual (Quran)

unknownuser

Salam brother Bilal.

You are saying, some people find it more "enjoyable" to sacrifice their own life for the sake of others. Agreed - but a vast majority of us are not that motivated - but we still find these people "good" ... so irrespective of whether we ourselves find the selfless sacrifice enjoyable or not - we consider selfless sacrifice for certain causes as good. And when we are forced to make a poor moral choice - we recognize that we are accepting the bad - because our commitment for doing good is not strong enough to sacrifice material well-being after a certain point. This shows that what one considers enjoyable does not "define" what is good. So, I reject the notion that human morality is a subset of our survival instinct / basic biological instincts - rather it must be a totally different instinct which often functions in opposite direction to our survival instinct. When we see a group of muggers mugging a helpless passer-by, our survival instinct tell us to run and flee ? but our moral instinct tell us to engage and fight back.

P.S. Due to personal reasons I will take a longish break from this forum. For those of you who celebrate Eid... wish you a happy Eid.

Not particularly more "enjoyable," but there is a stance of behavioral reinforcement to act in such a way. I completely agree that these people are few in number. As per human morality being a subset of survival instinct, we have to assess morality as a spectrum. I think the distinction between survival and survivability sheds some light into the excellent cases you pointed out. Lawrence Kohlberg devised a six-stage development schema of morality based off the famous developmental psychologist Piaget, and in the sixth stage, moral reasoning is contingent upon abstract reasoning. This type of moral reasoning requires the individual to engage in cognition to understand what to do in a given situation.

Your example of the helpless passer-by is a very good one, and it is referred to as the bystander effect. Interestingly, the probability of helping someone in need is inversely proportional to the number of bystanders present the more people there are watching, the less likely the individual is to offer the helping hand. The reasons for this are several; one which stands out to me most is diffusion of responsibility. Others involve ambiguity and cohesiveness (there are good Wikipedia articles for this).

The six stages of moral development are extremely fascinating and worth reading. It's been quite some time since I studied them; this is a good opportunity for me to go back and do so.

Also, don't forget that altruism is found in many non-human primates. A quick skimming through the Wikipedia article titled "Altruism in animals" shows that altruism is also found in some other mammals, birds, and invertebrates. There is even evidence to suggest altruism exists in some protists!

Have an excellent Eid insha'Allah, Allah bless you always.

Salaam,
Bilal

bookish

They will be saved as the companions of the right. . .
They have the "end product", and even without the manual (Quran)

Can you share some verses that say so? I don't think the Koran explicitly mentions this....

Mazhar

A question just occurred to me The Koran does not mention anything about people who do good deeds, but have no faith. What about people who've never read the Koran but have done good all their life? What about people who don't really have any religion but keep doing good for humanity? Will they be saved?

Yes there is a verse which says that the deeds of people without faith will be cancelled, but we're not explicitly told that all their good deeds, say saving people's lives etc. would be useless? Shouldn't all good people be saved? I come across so many people from other faiths who are so good and simple and honest. They never harmed anyone in their lives.

What will happen to them?

It's quite clear that we don't need faith to be good people. I wish the Koran said something about it....

Quote from muslims on July 25, 2014, 013828 AM
They will be saved as the companions of the right. . .
They have the "end product", and even without the manual (Quran)

Can you share some verses that say so? I don't think the Koran explicitly mentions this....

Are they awaiting to believe and/or act on Qur'aan that the Angles might come to them;

Or are they awaiting that your Sustainer Lord might come to them;

Or are they awaiting that some of unprecedented existentials of your Sustainer Lord might come to them?

The fact is that the day some unprecedented existentials of your Sustainer Lord reaches them

The believing of a person will not yield benefit him who had not believed in timeline prior to it.
Or that apparently believing person will not yield benefit on that day who earned nothing good in his belief.

You pronounce "You people wait for it; we are certainly expecting the Day."

Grammatical parsing of sentences 6158

Know about those people who publicly contradicted Aa'ya'at Verbal passages of the Book of Our Majesty, and negated encountering the Life and accountability of the Hereafter their acts have become voided, weightless froth, destructive.
Confirm, whether they are being recompensed but the natural effect of what they kept doing?"

http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.%20Tabweeb/0001.%20Pronouns%20and%20Prepositions/Interrogative%20partiles/04.%20Hall/1.gif It is an interrogative particle which seeks affirmation only , i.e. it seeks only to affirm that attribution in the expression is true or not. The appropriate reply is either yes or no, meaning affirmation or denial of the attribution.

The declarative sentence highlighting information of crucial import has a tag question. Interrogative sentence motivates the reader to actively process the information and confirm or contradict the statement. This will help him become mindful and take lesson from this declaration.

Grammatical parsing of sentences 7147

BobaFett

Right or wrong is subjective...
That's why the guidance is related to 'reciprocity'..
One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

So if someone wants to be killed it is ok for them to kill? Substitute the word kill with rape, hurt, rob, enslave.

Is there a subjective point of view where taking an innocent life or molesting a child can be considered right? I think at best it can be a necessary evil.

seekingtruth1111

4514Say to those who believed to forgive those who do not look forward to the days of God. He will recompense a people for whatever they have earned.
4515Whoever works good does so for himself, and whoever works evil will suffer it. Then to your Lord you will be returned.

Man_of_Faith

Very interesting indeed, seeking.

Thanks for pointing out that passage. I will take a look upon the Arabic text myself to see if that is really true. In that case I may have missed something that can add an important point in my view of the faith of God. In that case the intention may be to be whole towards God and not an anamoly rather than a matter of disbelief or belief.

Peace

JavaLatte

4514Say to those who believed to forgive those who do not look forward to the days of God. He will recompense a people for whatever they have earned.
4515Whoever works good does so for himself, and whoever works evil will suffer it. Then to your Lord you will be returned.

And there are other verses, such as

1115
Whoever desires the life of the world and its adornments, We will repay in full to them (for) their deeds therein and they in it will not be lessened.

2200
. . . . From among the people is he who says "Our Lord, give us from this world!", but in the Hereafter he has no part.

274-5
As for those who do not believe in the Hereafter, We have made their work appear pleasing to them, so they walk around blind. They will have the worst retribution, and in the Hereafter they are the biggest losers.

Salm.

Man_of_Faith

Peace JavaLatte,

You ought to pay attention to the fact that believe/iman may not reflect the traditional understanding.

We have made their work appear pleasing to them

This is about doing wrong. They were not seeing anything as wrong, because they were not whole and enticed by Satan into their deeds. It is easy unless you become more aware and work towards "belief" to do sins out of ignorance. You are just not mindful that you do bad things. It can be being unkind, selfish or unfair. Many times we do things when we are not symbiotic with God that we are perhaps not aware of because it is a "normalized" condition in society which is the illusion and wish of Satan for it to be like that.

2200 When you have completed your rites, then remember God as you remember your fathers or even greater. From among the people is he who says ?Our Lord, give us from this world!? But in the Hereafter he has no part.
2201 And some of them say ?Our Lord, give us good in this world, and good in the Hereafter, and spare us from the retribution of the Fire.?

He may pray for good sustenance and get it for this life, but his deeds are not very sincere and he has nothing reserved for himself when the promised day comes. There are many people that are hypocrites that appear to be good servants to God on the outside, but the inside is a mess. And many people think that God is most pleased when you strictly adhere to the illusive rituals and prohibitions, but God is in fact most pleased when you actually practice the commandments from a good perspective, i.e. be good, be kind, be fair, be charitable in money and deeds, sound judgment, work against oppression, forgive instead of judge by the right to judge and punish that you have by God's law, enlighten about God, be more appreciative rather than just avoid jealousy, etc. The practice of the commandments is not only to avoid doing the sins of the commandments from God but also being proactive in them.

1115 Whoever wants the worldly life and its adornments, then We will grant them their works in it, and they will not be short changed in it.
1116 These will have nothing but fire in the Hereafter, and what they have done will be in vain, and evil is what they have worked.

It is normally talking about doing wrong in this life. And I think the worst scenario is to live like a flock of sheep in this life, i.e. live it in the way media presents life and Hollywood movies etc, just enjoying it without any kind of realization of anything deeper in meaning. These people also tend to live unhappily with a lot of separation and much animosity in their lives. But living the life oblivious of any kind of purpose is a comfort to some people or rather not comfort but is just no responsibility because what kind of responsibility is there for them when there exists no god to them and they only live this life and say "We only live once, so let us not waste it" or "life is too short to waste it" (I have heard those statements in real life).

It mostly falls down on our practices in life. This belief vs. disbelief phenomenon is just a way towards injustice and treating people separately. Obviously if you deny God and then show through deeds that you truly do not care about anything then you are an anomaly and impurity, but we ought not to be too confident on the scenario with when someone is acting according to the decree and commandments of God but is an atheist in terms of traditional regard. Many love "Christian values", for example, but tend to not associate themselves with the world religions or the god that is induced by their imagination. There are many people who believe that the world is not just coincidentally in existence, but they do not believe in the concept of god like the sectarian people do. And they are right! God is everything and nothing at the same time, depending on how you see it, i.e. I mean that we are not God, but we are still part of God as part of a mass contained within a kind of Singularity/sphere. This is why God is in control of every atom and is omni-present because what we see is the "platform of God" and we live in a system and a temporary illusion that was only produced exactly like this for this test. Animals and plants (and down to cell level) live according to an innate instruction whereas we have an opportunity to take a stance even if we too have the animals' instincts in us although the spirit in our soul make us somehow able to be rational and more sophisticated, and that spirit grows when approaching God and the pursuit in become whole and one with the Singularity we live in rather than just being an anomaly and impurity and serve no purpose of this world at all.

Be whole

357

As-salam alaykum.

769
We only feed you for the sake of God; we do not desire from you any reward or thanks.

Doing good for the love of humanity is one think, and doing good for the sake of God is indeed another.

Regards.

God - Love

769
We only feed you for the sake of LOVE ; we do not desire from you any reward or thanks.

Doing good for the love of humanity is for the sake of God!!!!

hmm

Someone

Peace all,

Very interesting discussion!

I just wanted to add another perspective to this subject

For those of you who have children, I think that we can see in the different stages of the kid's growth some snapshots and similarities with the evolution of humans in general throughout the ages.

For a new born, he/she is relying solely on his instincts crying (asking for help) when something is wrong, when hungry or sick; there is no morality involved in this stage from the baby's perspective, it is only survival instinct driving all his actions.

During the first year, the baby starts to learn "the names of things" to make a distinction between the different creatures in the creation surrounding him. (remember the story of Adam learning to name things...). Also at this level, no morality is involved.

During the second year, the child starts to be conscious of "himself"; the selfish "I" starts to take control over its environment, for himself alone. At this level, I believe that the concept of IBLIS in te quran starts to play a role in the kid's psychology.

From the third year until adulthood, parents and family (and society in general) tries to teach the child some form of morality as accepted by the community; they teach the kid to accept sharing his belongings with others, to be gentle with others, to be honest, to avoid lying, stealing, cheating, hurting others... These moral injunctions are not built-in the kid, they are the cumulative knowledge of such community over the centuries, which proved to be essential for keeping the balance within the community; and even then, problems start arising between individuals in the community due to this selfish aspect of some of them.

At adulthood (the age is depending on each community), the person is held responsible of his actions and has to deal with the consequences, willingly or not; else, the person is kept away from the community (jail, exile...).

Thus, I believe that morality is not built-in, it is acquired through learning from the community, which itself has collected it through experiences that proved these moral principles to be beneficial to the community as a whole, although it might contain some "bad" injunctions like circumcision, sacrifices, burning widows with dead husband....

All I wanted to say is that Human evolution throughout history can be seen on a smaller scale in kids's upbringing, in an accelerated speed; a 10yo kid nowadays can acquire more knowledge than a 60 yo person 200 years ago and even more for an individual living thousands of years ago.

A last remark Humans are the most inhuman species in the world. It is the only species where individuals kill other individuals (from the same species) at such a large scale, over some futile ideas. No other species on this planet kill each other in such big numbers or in such horrible ways... Even the most savage animal do kill only to feed themselves. It is very rare where they kill for fun or for any other reason, even when defending their territory. In that sense, the other species are more Human than Humans themselves, but we (humans) like to boast about our sense of humanity... whatever

Peace

runninglikezebras

I've wondered about this topic a lot myself. I cant answer this with total confidence but I do find if you look at to whom the prophets and scriptures were sent to, this reveals something interesting. Is it a coincidence the cultures/people that had prophets and scripture sent to them were literate, advancing in technology and influencing western values, advancements in science and philosophy for centuries to come? The technological progress we have made has given us way more responsibility. It's way easier to stray onto the wrong path with the ability to access the technology we have today then without. The tools we have in hand can be very easily used for wrong purposes. To me it feels like all knowing God chose these hotbeds of emerging civilsation deliberately and we should be thankful for the guidance and reminder it gives us.

People who still live in harmony with nature most often didnt have a prophet nor scripture sent to them. I dont think this is coincidence. God has sent clear signs as a reminder to those people who need them most.

Is it possible then to live a good life without knowing God? Imo yes, entirely. Though it will be hard if you are not living very close to a 100% natural way of life.
Is it possible to live a good life while knowing about God but denying Him? Imo, it is not. If the standards of such a person are correct that person would acknowledge they are validated by Gods rules in scripture.

Man_of_Faith

Peace Someone,

I agree with most of what you said until I read this

These moral injunctions are not built-in the kid, they are the cumulative knowledge of such community over the centuries, which proved to be essential for keeping the balance within the community; and even then, problems start arising between individuals in the community due to this selfish aspect of some of them.

The knowing of what is morally wrong or not is actually an innate ability. I have both studied psychology myself and also seen studies and documentaries about this. There was an extensive study of whether goodness is innate or not even down to the phase of infancy. The children actually knows if something is wrong, but the ego is a conflicting factor.

The parents' work is to guide the children and to be role models for them and to be a source of information, but the "good vs. evil" know-how is already existent upon birth. I was not saying everything is wrong in what you say about teaching morals, but most of all the parents need to reflect the goodly person that they want their children to become.

If a child sees something unfair the children know if it is wrong or right and the ability to see this is innate. The children come more equipped than you may think.

Thus, I believe that morality is not built-in

Moral traditions are not "built-in", but the fundamental feeling for when something is right or wrong and particularly unfair is already developed early in life. Even in infancy the study showed that such ability between right and wrong was there. And children can also show signs of bad conscience when they have been too egotistical, even if they are very inexperienced on how to gauge this and that is where the parent comes in. You are a completely blank soul upon birth so you lack complete knowledge of what you need to know and even motor skill on how to coordinate the body, even if intuition is already there.

Rather it is the environment that causes us to lose control over our sense between right and wrong and adults are in themselves guilty over how the children behave as they grow up. Children are made so that they imitate both behavior and speech of adults and even among their own peers, so a good environment for the children is very important and particularly good role models for with good role models there can be bad people in the surroundings but the children will still look up to the good ones (through their innate subconscious ability). But the danger is if there are no good role models and also if the children are abused in various ways then the children may become abnormal and showing abnormal behavior. Furthermore, the society's standards of moral and what is normalized in a community sadly affects a child too, but the goodly reared children will at least come out of adolescence retaining their full knowledge of right and wrong.

Also we adults are not always aware how much negativity there is associated with the violence and how we portray how things are via media and how the parents act upon other humans, because the children quietly observes and will imitate the behavior in the image of their parents even if it is years later. But the real societal problem is when a phenomenon becomes "normalized" within a community. For example, Darwinism becomes accepted and faith in God becomes primitive and not trendy, or sex from right to left is entirely okay, adultery seems not so bad, nakedness becomes extreme, reckless driving, much alcohol and drugs, unfriendly behavior to "act cool" is okay and many such ideals that are quite common in society today. But a big issue I have seen is that anger is even promoted to be shown in some cases, but the best thing is to prevent the anger from being built up in the first place.

But a person who reached adulthood having these defects can still "cure" himself by turning to God and start reflecting upon existence. I am one of those live examples personally, because I come from a very rowdy background myself and somewhere by turning towards within yourself can actually make you discover that innate intuition of what you came equipped with. And I think you do not even have to really involve God in the process because God does it no matter if you are aware or not and I was not really aware in the beginning but I just told myself "Enough! I am going to change my life!". Just quitting the alcohol helped tremendously. God was not much part of my life than I had realized that the Universe was alive as a body, which I still consider to be God as of today, even if I have deluded myself a little through the bias of men.

A last remark Humans are the most inhuman species in the world. It is the only species where individuals kill other individuals (from the same species) at such a large scale, over some futile ideas

It is because of the advanced brain that this species came equipped with and many people seem not to be able to use it properly. And the virus called Satan infused into our soul is not helping much either. It totally possesses some fools. If we removed any taint from humans and removed the virus of Satan then things would not look so grim. But what kind of test would it be?

Greed, ego, arrogance, false ideals (images of god(s)) is all that causes these people to fight and murder millions. Interestingly it is usually the conjecture that the feuding factions fight over and which idol is the better.

Human than Humans themselves, but we (humans) like to boast about our sense of humanity...

When we talk about that we mean the goodly side that comes from God, the real decree. Humans are not so bad from birth, the world causes them to become monsters.

Be whole

good_logic

Peace runninglikezebras.

First regardless of where one lived/lives, we all have the "instinct" to know GOD?

Who needs clear signs/message... and why?

I would say all humans receive some kind of message, because every individual becomes his own "witness" on the day of judgement.

I would like to elaborate further

5021
Every soul comes with a herder and a witness.

5022
You used to be oblivious to this. We now remove your veil; today, your vision is (as strong as) steel.

5023
The companion said, "Here is my formidable testimony."

Also God swears by the witness and the witnessed (853). When God swears, He demands our attention.

The integrity of a witness is crucial to establish justice.

Hence no one will be wronged. GOD knows deep inside every individual and whether they "believed" or disbelieved". Their true intentions in whatever age they lived .Past ,present or future.

We cannot hide our intentions from GOD. Who knows what, who is ignoring what, who is not checking properly,...etc

GOD knows them all.
Our excuses and personal opinions that oppose GOD s are futile and become our downfall..

GOD bless you.
Peace.

Someone

Peace Man of Faith, all

I agree also with most of what you said. I would like to give some more clarifications about my previous post.

When we are born into this world, we are at the same "civilizational or moral level" as any other animal/insect/plant(??); meaning that we are willing, as the other animals, to comply with the rules of nature (created by the creator). Animals cannot do otherwise.

But Humanity as a whole, have decided not to stay at that level; Humanity have chosen to "educate" its children, and not leave them at animal level; and from then, we have started separating from the natural way of things. And we are still doing it as every parents try to educate their kids, giving them more power (knowledge to control the environment) and thus making them able to do good or bad consciously. No parents will accept to leave their kids at the animal level, so we have consciously taken the responsibility of ourselves, choosing to follow other ways than the natural way. (and we have fallen from the heavenly garden state of mind)

A snake biting a person is not considered as an immoral act, but a person hurting another person "unjustly" is considered as an immoral act. We cannot talk about justice in the animal world.

We can choose, as Humanity as a whole, to step back and return to the animal level, to renounce to all the accumulated knowledge through the ages, to renounce to all our technologies and tools we have developed in order to comply with the rules of nature, and thus we will not be held responsible of our acts as we cannot do any wrong then; but I guess that it is too late now to return to that "heavenly" state of mind, and that we have to continue dealing with our human affairs between ourselves.

Our natural instinct, as you have rightly pointed out in your post, is able to make us aware of the good and the bad, but unfortunately, it is deeply covered by all the "education" we get from our parents and respective communities, plus our ego which feels more powerful and think it can control everything around. Thus, it is important to check our "education" to verify if the principles that we are following are complying with our "natural instinct" in order to avoid bad deeds.

In the end, I don't know if Humanity have progressed or regressed from that animal (heavenly) level, but I know that we can do good and bad, with or without God; surely, knowing the right way is no guaranty that we will be following it as we can still choose other ways. In the end, it is our actions that count.

I hope I did not add more confusion with my post.

Jafar

Peace Someone,

I agree with most of what you said until I read this

The knowing of what is morally wrong or not is actually an innate ability. I have both studied psychology myself and also seen studies and documentaries about this. There was an extensive study of whether goodness is innate or not even down to the phase of infancy. The children actually knows if something is wrong, but the ego is a conflicting factor.

If a child sees something unfair the children know if it is wrong or right and the ability to see this is innate. The children come more equipped than you may think.

Moral traditions are not "built-in", but the fundamental feeling for when something is right or wrong and particularly unfair is already developed early in life. Even in infancy the study showed that such ability between right and wrong was there. And children can also show signs of bad conscience when they have been too egotistical, even if they are very inexperienced on how to gauge this and that is where the parent comes in. You are a completely blank soul upon birth so you lack complete knowledge of what you need to know and even motor skill on how to coordinate the body, even if intuition is already there.

Rather it is the environment that causes us to lose control over our sense between right and wrong and adults are in themselves guilty over how the children behave as they grow up. Children are made so that they imitate both behavior and speech of adults and even among their own peers, so a good environment for the children is very important and particularly good role models for with good role models there can be bad people in the surroundings but the children will still look up to the good ones (through their innate subconscious ability). But the danger is if there are no good role models and also if the children are abused in various ways then the children may become abnormal and showing abnormal behavior. Furthermore, the society's standards of moral and what is normalized in a community sadly affects a child too, but the goodly reared children will at least come out of adolescence retaining their full knowledge of right and wrong.

Agree

I've started asking question to my "Murabi" on

Muhammad's sahada, did he really said "I testify that I am God's messenger"?
Muhammad's mom and dad, will they be tortured in hell? since they didn't proclaimed the sahada and thus not a Muslim.
How Allah can be just if He likes to torture people just because they didn't proclaimed the sahada?
How the "grave torture"can happened to those who died without any grave?

And I was 4 years old..

Detection of "right and wrong" and/or "Truth and Bullsh&t" is an innate ability on SOME of the human.
With an exception of "Psychopathic" human.

And Religion / Tradition / Social Environment condition usually suppresses the 'detection skills' through repetitive and dogmatic style of teaching. Which is

IT IS TRUE BECAUSE I SAID SO!!

Tips Don't do the above to any of your kids, whether it's now or in the future.
The next generation must be better than than the generation that they shall replace (read us)

Teach the kids about justice and empathy (do to others as you would like others do to you), hug them, stimulate their hormones to produce Oxytocin in great abundance. Oxytocin has been proven to stimulate empathy and morality within mammals and the lack of it causes Psychopathy.

Don't teach them dogmatic religion bullsh*t yet stimulate their critical thinking ability, urge them to never be afraid for asking questions.

Salam / Peace