God + Morals?

[Historicity]

Is the idea of God really needed to make moral decisions in a person’s life?

Isn’t it an insult to the religious person that without their God in their life they wouldn’t have the mere intellect to consciously make productive and positive decisions rather than doing things that would harm the people and society around them?

Isn’t it better to do good things for the mere satisfaction of helping your fellow man instead of under the guise of a self-serving underlying promise of eternal gratification coupled with it?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Catholic teaching is that the whole moral law, in every requirement of positive and negative precepts, can be understood by reason, apart from Divine Revelation. However, the reason of fallen sinners often errs when seeking moral truth. And living in a sinful society also makes it difficult to find moral truth. So Divine Revelation, while not offering any moral truth needed to avoid sin that cannot be found by reason alone, allows fallen sinful man to more easily obtain moral truth, to be more certain that those truths are correct, and to cling to them more firmly, all due to the assurance that Divine Revelation is truth from God.

 

[Historicity]

If “divine revelation” wasn’t needed to come to any of the conclusions regarding moral laws, how do we reasonably come to the conclusion that things such as eating meat on fast days is a “sin” or other things deemed sins created out of church tradition alone?

 

[Watchman]

By definition, “moral law” is known by reason. It is not the result of something written, but of reason (with justice, prudence, etc.) alone. Therefore, days of obligation are not derived from moral law. Neither are traffic laws.

 

[Historicity]

By definition, “moral law” is known by reason. It is not the result of something written, but of reason (with justice, prudence, etc.) alone. Therefore, days of obligation are not derived from moral law. Neither are traffic laws.

Traffic laws? Sure they are. Without them, we’re likely being reckless, not looking out for other people’s safety etc. It’s quite obvious to see the moral reasons that drive(no pun intended) traffic laws.

I can’t say I see those same moral reasons behind days of obligation, fasting, and the like.

 

[Watchman]

I’m speaking of specific methods of observing the traffic laws, not the usefulness of traffic laws generally. Of course it is morally imperative that we respect the lives of others. Whether that concern is expressed by driving on the left or the right is not, of itself, a naturally discernible answer, so we defer to the authority granted to the state to define the specifics.

Similarly, it is morally imperative that we respect the sovereignty of God. Whether that is expressed by eating chocolate on Thursdays, double-cheese on Wednesdays, or no meat on Fridays is not a naturally discernible answer, so we defer to the authority granted to the church to define the specifics.

In neither case, driving on the left or abstaining from meat on Fridays, are those specifics derived from moral law.

 

[Nec5]

Isn’t it better to do good things for the mere satisfaction of helping your fellow man instead of under the guise of a self-serving underlying promise of eternal gratification coupled with it?

That is a rather naive Rousseau view of human nature. Without the concept of a higher power and life after death, there is no limit to what I would and could do. I can be satisfied hurting my fellow man. Our flawed nature makes that the reality.

 

[Garyjohn2]

Is the idea of God really needed to make moral decisions in a person’s life?

Isn’t it an insult to the religious person that without their God in their life they wouldn’t have the mere intellect to consciously make productive and positive decisions rather than doing things that would harm the people and society around them?

Isn’t it better to do good things for the mere satisfaction of helping your fellow man instead of under the guise of a self-serving underlying promise of eternal gratification coupled with it?

1. Yes, I’ll elaborate
2. No. I would be a rotten, selfish person without God. I know it, and I’m not offended by it.
3. Yes, but people who believe in God are not doing it “under the guise of a self-serving underlying promise of eternal gratification.” They are doing it because they are grateful to God, and love him.

God is the foundation of morals. Without him, there would be no permanent moral code. It would be free to change person to person, or be free to change year to year. This would be bad for a lasting society.

Anyways, God is the foundation of all morals. People have always gotten their morals though faith. These days, not as much though. Well then, where do they get their moral code from? From their parents perhaps? The people who raise us help form our consciences, teach us what is right or wrong. How did our parents learn their morals? From their faith? Well, maybe they were atheists. Well, then where? From their parents.

If you keep going back far enough, you will find faith-based morals. Right and wrong don’t spring out of the ground, and it can’t be “invented.” God is the source of these, like it or not!

You have to think these things all the way through. For example, without God, I can try to reason that it’s not good for me to steal. Why? I might end up in jail. Why? Because its against the law. Why? (two choices here)

1. Because people have decided it’s wrong. Why? It’s the way they were taught be those that came before them. Why? They believe in it, or were taught it themselves. This will go back to God eventually.
2. Because people have decided that a successful society can’t have rampant stealing. Why? Because it will decrease wealth, and standard of living. But will it? The thief becomes richer, and better off. It’s someone else that becomes poorer in the process. So why does that matter? If there is no life after death, what use is a lasting society to me?

I don’t know…I just see most discussions about “moral objectivity” to have two options. Morality is either rooted in God, and therefore immutable, and it is passed down over generations (and manifests itself in our own moral codes and legal codes), or it is not, and it doesn’t really exist. If objective reality doesn’t exist, the moral code will change (because there’s no foundation it has to adhere to), and people will eventually do whatever they want, or whatever they can get away with to get ahead.

 

[Dorothy]

If “divine revelation” wasn’t needed to come to any of the conclusions regarding moral laws, how do we reasonably come to the conclusion that things such as eating meat on fast days is a “sin” or other things deemed sins created out of church tradition alone?

For me, it is an act of obedience to the Church to refrain from eating meat on days that I am asked to.
I am obedient to the authority of the Church even with their disciplinary laws, out of love and respect for the Lord and His Church.

 

[Historicity]

That is a rather naive Rousseau view of human nature. Without the concept of a higher power and life after death, there is no limit to what I would and could do. I can be satisfied hurting my fellow man. Our flawed nature makes that the reality.

You’re saying that if you hadn’t been introduced to the idea of God and eternal punishment/reward, you wouldn’t be a morally responsible member of society? Certainly you would realize you have to be nice to the people around you without a god. I highly doubt you would be as inconsiderate as to be satisfied by hurting your fellow man.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5733638.ece

God is the foundation of morals. Without him, there would be no permanent moral code. It would be free to change person to person, or be free to change year to year. This would be bad for a lasting society.

Anyways, God is the foundation of all morals. People have always gotten their morals though faith. These days, not as much though. Well then, where do they get their moral code from? From their parents perhaps? The people who raise us help for our consciences, teach us what is right or wrong. How did our parents learn their morals? From their faith? Well, maybe they were atheists. Well, then where? From their parents.

If you keep going back far enough, you will find faith-based morals. Right and wrong don’t spring out of the ground, and it can’t be “invented.” God is the source of these, like it or not! Actually the betterment of society and fair and just treatment toward other members of our species is the source of this. timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5733638.ece <Just one example of our moral foundations.

You have to think these things all the way through. For example, without God, I can try to reason that it’s not good for me to steal. Why? I might end up in jail. Why? Because its against the law. Why? (two choices here) How about because you’re infringing on the property of your fellow human and causing him some sort of harm?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

For me, it is an act of obedience to the Church to refrain from eating meat on days that I am asked to.
I am obedient to the authority of the Church even with their disciplinary laws, out of love and respect for the Lord and His Church.

Right, Dorothy. It is not ‘eating meat’ that is a sin in itself (otherwise to be consistent one would have to refrain from eating meat ALL the time); it is disobedience to lawful authority which is sinful.

Fasting has always been required (and not just by ‘religious’ societies) as a DISCIPLINE which is utilized to train the body and the mind. And likewise, societies (and not just ‘religious’ ones) have taken sanctions against those who refuse to conform. If a society were, for example, to be facing a great enemy, and the head of state decreed that all members of that society were to fast for a certain period of days, you’d probably find a few of those members thinking that (for whatever reason) they ‘didn’t have to do this’ because it wasn’t (in THEIR minds and ‘reason’) NECESSARY.

Of course, if they were caught in disobedience, they would suffer whatever civil penalty was deemed appropriate. Not because they were ‘eating’ as though the eating itself was wrong (that would be absurd; everybody eats) but because they weren’t following the legal decision of their society to observe what the ‘state’ had determined should be a fast period.

I will never understand how people can (supposedly using their ‘reason’) see the whole Catholic position of abstinence from meat on Fridays as being about “meat eating a sin one time but not another”. It is nothing of the kind. The issue is that of disobedience to the decision of a lawful authority. The disobedience is what is wrong.

 

[Windfish]

Is the idea of God really needed to make moral decisions in a person’s life?

Isn’t it an insult to the religious person that without their God in their life they wouldn’t have the mere intellect to consciously make productive and positive decisions rather than doing things that would harm the people and society around them?

Isn’t it better to do good things for the mere satisfaction of helping your fellow man instead of under the guise of a self-serving underlying promise of eternal gratification coupled with it?

I think you misunderstand the topic. It’s not that a person cannot be moral without the idea of God, whatever that means, but that morality itself is impossible, cannot exist without God.

 

[Garyjohn2]

Historicity, your link is not working for me.

 

[Historicity]

I will never understand how people can (supposedly using their ‘reason’) see the whole Catholic position of abstinence from meat on Fridays as being about “meat eating a sin one time but not another”. It is nothing of the kind. The issue is that of disobedience to the decision of a lawful authority. The disobedience is what is wrong.

I fully understand that I apologize if I made it seem as if I don’t understand the principles behind it.

timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5733638.ece

link works fine for me

 

[Orleans_Attny]

Is the idea of God really needed to make moral decisions in a person’s life?

Isn’t it an insult to the religious person that without their God in their life they wouldn’t have the mere intellect to consciously make productive and positive decisions rather than doing things that would harm the people and society around them?

Isn’t it better to do good things for the mere satisfaction of helping your fellow man instead of under the guise of a self-serving underlying promise of eternal gratification coupled with it?

You’re kind of mixing and matching ideas here. Without God all “morals” become relative - preferences of one’s experience in the natural world. They’re changeable based on one’s life experiences, personality, etc.

Those aren’t really morals - they’re preferences.

Have some Christians done horribly selfish and evil things? Of course, but those actions are inconsistent with Christianity as a world view.

Have some atheists done horribly selfish and evil things? Of course. The difference is that their actions are not inconsistent with atheism as a world view.

But in the end, it’s entirely logical the those without faith can still act morally. Even the nonbelievers were created in God’s image. And a concept of right and wrong, moral and immoral is ingrained in us - whether we acknowledge a creator or not.

Pax,
OA

 

[stevealbert99]

If you are moral only out of fear of being punished by god, then that is not true morality. If god is taken out of the picture, and you turn into an evil person, then you were never moral in the first place.

 

[Garyjohn2]

If you are moral only out of fear of being punished by god, then that is not true morality. If god is taken out of the picture, and you turn into an evil person, then you were never moral in the first place.

People are not moral. They can do moral things, but we all end up doing immoral things…whether God is in the picture or not.

People don’t do moral things out of a fear of punishment, but out of love for God and for other people.

 

[stevealbert99]

People don’t do moral things out of a fear of punishment, but out of love for God and for other people.

No not all of the time, but people do act morally out of fear of punishment, which is not true morality.

 

[Garyjohn2]

No not all of the time, but people do act morally out of fear of punishment, which is not true morality.

Hmm, I see what you are saying. I disagree with you though. Morality is right conduct. If you look up the definition of morality, it won’t mention anything about the motivations for being moral.

But that’s ok, people can have their own interpretation!