N
norain
Guest
Morals and justice came from God. Whether religion exists or not, God would still be there.
- Status
J
John_Martin
Guest
It is obvious that all people have “morals”, be they atheist, religious, Christian. It is only a question of their source.
One thing I am seeing in these posts is that some people subject themselves to an “authority”, with that authority as their “teacher”, while others regard their own reasoning about things as the authority. In my own writings I am considering the teaching the Catholic Church (which includes their sacred writings), and thus, Aquinas, as authoritative, and that is the “principle” bounding my reasoning as a sort of framework.
If some philosophy disagrees with Aquinas’ teaching without endosement from the Church, then it is not authoritative to me, and not a valid description of reality. A Catholic knows that the Church is from God, and that the Holy Spirit is real, inspiring the Church, and, thus, subjects himself to its authority.
John Martin
I
interestedman
Guest
Well I don’t think that God exists. So we aren’t really on the same page there.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
I’m actually questioning how well the authority metaphor fits many of the behavious that some display that may be classified in the realm of being moral. I think the motivations (or as you have refereed to it “sources”) for many people’s morality are many. To name a few motivations part of it is socialization, part of it may be from authorities (which may be influenced by other factors including other authorities), part may be from an interpretation of a religion ,part of it is reasoned, part comes from empathy.And different people will put different weights on these motivations (which may be influenced by other concerns). I think that many people have shared and similar concerns. And where their concerns and their understanding of these concerns are the same or similar we’ll also find similar moral behaviour.
Even for one that decides to employ the morality of some authority chances are the volume of information from that authority has not covered ever possible scenario that the person will encounter. Some reasoning will be involved. Especially when one encounters situations in which their available course of actions all involve some violation of those directives. An example I see used here is the scenario of one that has broken into a house with a gun and wants to know who else is in the house (one could tell the truth about the person hiding in the closet and risk their life or lie and possibly save it). Or when the consequences of an action are far removed from the consequences (such as in public policy or environmental concerns).
N
norain
Guest
As an atheist, where did morals come from, then?
What is this moral-creating entity?
I
interestedman
Guest
The moral creating entity is the brain which has been developed through evolution. There are parts of the brain that are directly related to empathy, which I think is the cornerstone of human morality. Paul said that morality was written on the hearts of all men (paraphrasing) and he attributed this to God. I agree with Paul, but believe that its not attributable to God but to evolution and the brain.
C
Contarini
Guest
That’s true. However, there’s a more specific point here: Christianity is a messianic religion based on a “failed” messiah. There were many other failed messiahs in Jesus’ day, and their followers quite reasonably concluded that they weren’t really the Messiah. Now one can argue that Jesus’ followers were so deeply attached to him that they came up with the idea that he had been risen from the dead. I don’t think that’s an irrational conclusion. But it’s a remarkable anomaly compared to the behavior of the followers of other messiahs who were defeated and crucified by the Romans. And if the general Christian account of reality makes sense, it is quite reasonable–indeed, I would say it’s the more reasonable approach–to believe that what the early Christians said happen did really happen.
There really aren’t anywhere nearly as many religious options as people claim. Leaving atheism aside, there are basically four:
- Paganism, including Hinduism as the most developed form of paganism.
- Buddhism–a tradition developing out of Indian paganism and compatible with it on the level of practice but critiquing it radically through the doctrine of “noself.”
- Simple monotheism, as found in Judaism, Islam, or Sikhism.
- Christianity.
Christianity is unique among the major world religions in requiring a kind of “cultlike” faith in a founding figure. That is to say, we are asked to believe that this person is the be-all and end-all of human existence. There are many religious movements that have done this over the centuries, but none of them except Christianity have lasted for centuries as coherent movements, or have produced significant religious/cultural achievements.
I don’t offer these considerations as proof of Christianity–of course they are not. But I offer them as evidence that Christianity is unique. It may just be a cult that “got lucky” by coming along at the right place and time to go global and become a “major religion.” But it is the only person-centered cult, among the many person-centered cults that have arisen over the millennia, to do this.
And again, one reasonable possibility is that in this particular case it is correct to base one’s life on this particular person, because this particular person really is God Incarnate.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
But lots of other things are found in the brain too. What makes empathy special?
Do you simply have an intuition–which you recognize has no rational basis–that empathy is the aspect of the brain you should base your life around?
Do you practice empathy because you think it has greater utilitarian benefits than the alternatives?
Or what is your reason?
This to me is where atheism breaks down. It’s not that atheists can’t be moral, but that their reasons for being moral don’t seem grounded in objective reality, except insofar as atheists are utilitarians (which I think is a profoundly immoral position, so I would tend to say that those atheists aren’t really moral at all).
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I wouldn’t disagree with that claim so much as nuance it (I don’t think “religion” was a distinct thing until relatively modern times, and I think that it’s somewhat of a chicken-and-egg question, but I think a good case can be made that morality and justice have always been associated with the concept of the sacred).
But in fact that wasn’t the claim. I marvel how consistently atheists make this false assumption about what is being claimed.
The claim is rather that morality and justice, if they are rational in a sense that transcends utilitarianism, must be rooted in some kind of eternal standard of morality with an intrinsic claim on our allegiance. In other words, in what we would call God. (Whether this “God” has the kind of attributes we would think of as “personal” is a separate question.)
In classical theism, God is the ground of all reality. Morality is not simply what God has commanded but rather the kind of behavior that corresponds to our divinely given nature–that is to say, the kind of behavior in which beings made as we are most closely imitate the eternal nature of God.
That makes sense of why all moral people feel the moral impulse to be of overwhelming urgency and importance. Without God–in the sense I defined God above–this appears to be an irrational sentiment. It may be no more irrational than anything else–the bigger question, in fact, is what the concept of reason means if there is no God–but a person’s choice to practice empathy would appear to be simply one person’s preference. Someone else, who chooses to practice sadism, would simply be following another set of evolutionary impulses that they happen to prefer.
Edwin
J
John_Martin
Guest
The House Broken Into: As a Catholic, my Authority requires (since I am subject to my Authority) that I love my God with my whole heart and love my neighbor as myself.
My neighbor is both the invader and the loved one in the closet. If I love the one in the closet, I will not expose them to harm. If I love the invader, I will not expose him to harm (the harm he would do to himself (his soul and/or his future facing prison or worse and/or his conscience) at having committed violence), so I will do all to disuade his violence. Lying about the one in the closet is not equal to “bearing false witness against my neighbor”. I have no qualms abould lying to the intruder, because I love him.
The reasoning involved, of which you speak, would be prior to any given situation like the above - having a morality or moral code to begin with (whether by Authority or reasoned or a mixture of reasoning and socialization) becomes almost the instinct in a given situation like that of the intruder such that your action is immediate, almost unreasoned reaction. Any reasoning, though, about a specific course of action flows from or is subject to the existing moral belief which a person has ingrained in themselves.
a note: I really don’t consider it a metaphor to be subject to an authority; it is a fact. The “many behaviours” either proceed from subjection to an authority or do not (then they might proceed from any of the things you listed).
But, all people have a “morality”, and that becomes the “principle” or “baseline” from which individual actions emerge.
John Martin
N
norain
Guest
This can be reduced to whether you believe ideas are invented/created in the minds of men or exist independent of us and are waiting for us to discover them (Platonism), like Columbus discovered America.
Same question goes for all branches of knowledge. I don’t see how we could invent calculus if it was not consistent with the workings of nature. So we discovered calculus, not invented it. I think the same can be said for every other idea out there.
They existed in all eternity.
M
mac1234567
Guest
GO TO : www.gotquestions.org!!!
ask any question!!!
ask any question!!!
I
interestedman
Guest
You should base your life on empathy because it is rational. The golden rule IS empathy. Treat others how you want to be treated. I want to be good to others because I want others to be good to me. Also being good to others makes you feel good. It makes you happy. And these are all reinforcements of evolution because society works better if people are good to each other.
I try to be a good person and help others because I believe it is the right thing to do. That is a product of evolution and my brain.
K
Katherine438
Guest
I pray that you find your way back to our Lord … I won’t go into detail, by He is truly there.
God Bless You.
God Bless You.
U
User124
Guest
beautiful song
N
Neithan
Guest
Sounds nice.
But I can’t believe it — that evolution is the explanation of everything. Living like that feels like taking the blue pill and submerging my mind into a comfortable materialist matrix.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
In what way? I agree that it’s rational–but then, I think it’s rational because it derives from the divine nature, which is the source of all reason.
But it’s pretty clear that in some cases being good to others may set you up to be hurt and may not get you good practical results. The Golden Rule says that you should be good to others under those circumstances anyway. Why should one follow this?
Lots of things make different people feel good, and there are lots of ways of feeling good. I don’t see that you have any basis for preferring one to another, without some kind of transcendent rational standard (which doesn’t have to be a personal God–the Stoic logos would work just as well, for instance, or the Confucian Tao implanted in the human heart by an impersonal and mysterious “Heaven”).
“Better” implies a standard of good, and it implies that one ought to care about society working “better.” You keep smuggling in standards that you haven’t defended.
Sure, but if evolution is a blind, purely material force, if there is no rationality inherent in it, then your belief is just a set of neurons firing in your brain. I’m happy that you choose to act according to those particular neurons instead of others, but one can’t call that rational behavior.
Edwin
N
norain
Guest
I’d object to this. Not sure what you mean by “grounded in objective reality”, first.
Second, if God did create all things, then the morality that the atheist subscribes to should default to God’s morality. Anything and everything, the air we breath, the math we know, science, language, even the mere firing of our neurons are testament to God’s nature.
S
StrawberryJam
Guest
We are debating with a guy who is unable or unwilling to chose the Catholic Church as a baptised believer?
- Status