If God doesn't exist, is there any point in being a good person?

[James_Miller]

Without God each person would have to invent his own good. Then decide if he wants to keep it.

 

[mcteague]

What is the basis of that reasoning in a pointless universe?

Yes, if God did not exist you would have to find different reasons than the ones you currently use. Right now, even accepting Gods existence, you can look for those reasons. What you and others in a sense are saying is that there is really only one commandment. Obey God. It actually does not matter what the morality is, or what the commandments are? There no requirement for reason or understanding. Obedience is the only requirement. I suppose this is what Nietzsche means by a slave morality. Because that is exactly what it is.
I am not saying you have to deny Gods existence. But I could never embrace such an anti-human, anti-intellectual weltanschauung.

 

[Ender]

Yes, if God did not exist you would have to find different reasons than the ones you currently use. Right now, even accepting Gods existence, you can look for those reasons.

The issue on this thread is not whether we’re right about the existence of God but whether morality can exist without God. Proving us wrong does not prove you’re right.

What you and others in a sense are saying is that there is really only one commandment. Obey God. It actually does not matter what the morality is, or what the commandments are? There no requirement for reason or understanding. Obedience is the only requirement. I suppose this is what Nietzsche means by a slave morality. Because that is exactly what it is.
I am not saying you have to deny Gods existence. But I could never embrace such an anti-human, anti-intellectual weltanschauung.

Most people who say they reject Christianity are in fact rejecting only a caricature of it and it is tempting to go into that point here … but it isn’t relevant to the issue. The ball is in your court to explain the existence of morality. Your first effort - that all people are inherently of equal value - falls short. Toneyrey made a good point and I would just add that the claim seems invalid on its face as, in any measurable way, people are clearly not of equal value.

Ender

 

[mcteague]

The issue on this thread is not whether we’re right about the existence of God but whether morality can exist without God. Proving us wrong does not prove you’re right.
Most people who say they reject Christianity are in fact rejecting only a caricature of it and it is tempting to go into that point here … but it isn’t relevant to the issue. The ball is in your court to explain the existence of morality. Your first effort - that all people are inherently of equal value - falls short. Toneyrey made a good point and I would just add that the claim seems invalid on its face as, in any measurable way, people are clearly not of equal value.

Ender

The operative word was “inherently”. One person is not inherently more valuable than another. This is actually part of the reasoning behind some of the pro-life movement. Although they would argue that that intrinsic value is a function of being created by God. But it is essentially the same conclusion.
The question is only “can morality exist without God” because you have reframed it that way. You use, what is sometimes called, proof by definition reasoning. Defining morality as something that comes from God. Therefore no other argument is possible.
But as fully functioning ethical and moral systems can be created without reference to God we must conclude that your definition is fundamentally flawed. It is in fact sophistry.
Again, I am not arguing the existence of God. Only that Gods existence is not an essential component of a moral or ethical system.

 

[Ender]

One person is not inherently more valuable than another.

This is an assertion without proof and seems on its face to be false - as mankind throughout history has surely acted as if this was untrue.

But as fully functioning ethical and moral systems can be created without reference to God we must conclude that your definition is fundamentally flawed.

There is no doubt that fully functioning systems of behavior can be created without reference to God - even the Marquis de Sade had one. The question is not whether such systems can be created but rather in what sense they can be considered moral. Again, until you define what you mean by a moral system, there is no way to know what we’re even discussing. Poking holes in my belief adds nothing to the strength of your own. It doesn’t help you to show that my position is wrong; you need to show that yours is right.

Ender

 

[mcteague]

This is an assertion without proof and seems on its face to be false - as mankind throughout history has surely acted as if this was untrue.
There is no doubt that fully functioning systems of behavior can be created without reference to God - even the Marquis de Sade had one. The question is not whether such systems can be created but rather in what sense they can be considered moral. Again, until you define what you mean by a moral system, there is no way to know what we’re even discussing. Poking holes in my belief adds nothing to the strength of your own. It doesn’t help you to show that my position is wrong; you need to show that yours is right.

Ender

I am not poking holes in your beliefs. I am poking holes in your reasoning. Morality is a means of differentiating right from wrong. The claim that right from wrong can not be differentiated in the absence of God is clearly false.
For the sake of the argument, let’s assume that right and wrong are universals. Let’s also assume that the morality of the Catholic God articulates those universals perfectly.
You seem to be arguing that the only way to discern those universals is through revelation. That is that man is by nature such a brute that without God he could not reason that killing is wrong. That man could not reason any conception of right or wrong. That seems preposterous.
I’ll ask the same question I did in my first post in this thread. If you lost your faith, or if there were no God, would you be raping your 13 year old neighbor? Would be a murderer? Of course not. So clearly there is some means to differentiate right from wrong in the absence of God. Your claim can only be true if we accept a truly horrendous definition if what man is or can be.

 

[mcteague]

You also seem to be claiming that in order to disprove your assertion that morality is unknowable and undefinable without God I must display a complete universal moral system. That is not true. Although TV attorneys often prove who the real killer is as well as proving their own clients innocence, that is not what is required.
You also have argued that because my example of a morality based in part on a belief in the inherent equal value of each person is not universally accepted then that can not be the basis of a moral system. But you ignore the fact that the moral system of the Catholic God is not universally accepted either. By your definition, that can not be accepted as a moral system either.
Your entire argument is really based on circular reasoning and rhetorical devices. You are the one making the claim. It is your obligation to prove it. But you can not. Because it is not provable. It is something that sounds very deep. But it is really at best just a platitude.
And completely unsupportable by reason.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

It is rather sad to me that so many of the responders consider belief in God a requirement for moral and ethical behavior. Does that mean that if you lost your faith you’d be off raping your thirteen year old neighbor? Perhaps it best for rest of us that you do believe.

Belief in God is definitely not a requirement for being a moral and ethical person. I would even question whether behavior rooted in obedience can really be called moral or ethical? Well I suppose I would call it the morality of a child. Non religious based ethics requires a greater degree of understanding and an adult relationship to the world. It must be superior to one enforced by the threat of damnation. Which is really just the ultimate spanking.

Any talk of morality without G-d is no more than talk about peoples opinions. So belief in G-d is literally a requirement for moral behavior.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Any talk of morality without G-d is no more than talk about peoples opinions. So belief in G-d is literally a requirement for moral behavior.

Without empirical evidence, talk of God’s morality is is no more than talk about peoples opinions. Just because you happen to think you opinions are well reasoned and you are confident enough to call them beliefs does not make the opinions more legitimate.

It is possible to construct a definition of morality that can be objectively measured without invoking God. Choosing the best definition of morality will always be a matter of opinion, until someone offers real world evidence of a God-provided moral code.

Note: proving that God exists is a whole separate discussion than proving we know what God considers moral or immoral.

 

[exnihilo]

If you lost your faith, or if there were no God, would you be raping your 13 year old neighbor? Would be a murderer? Of course not. So clearly there is some means to differentiate right from wrong in the absence of God. Your claim can only be true if we accept a truly horrendous definition if what man is or can be.

Most people alive today would not rape their 13 year old neighbor or murder lacking faith in God. That seems evident from the relative lack of those evils compared to declining faith. However we have seen great increases in what was formerly immoral such as abortion, divorce, out of wedlock births and more.

We are moving away from faith in God but there is a remnant of morality that faith once instilled. As we move away people become more and more immoral. Of course they dont call it that since what was immoral is now moral. Cultural norms keep people from acting as badly as they can, but since we do have reason eventually people will begin to live more in line with what they actually believe. A study of history will tell you of the barbarisms that developed in many great civilizations as they collapsed.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Without empirical evidence, talk of God’s morality is is no more than talk about peoples opinions.

The empirical/verification/falsification statements are all self refuting logical contradictions. That’s like telling me I need to have an invisible pink unicorn before I can talk about G-ds moral commands. There can be no question that G-d exists. Not only is G-d logically necessary we documented our interactions with Him over the last few thousand years. He even left mathematical proof in the fulfillment of Messianic Prophecy by Christ for people who did not witness Him personally. There is no rational question that G-d exists, there are just a lot of people who really, really, really hope He doesn’t.

Just because you happen to think you opinions are well reasoned and you are confident enough to call them beliefs does not make the opinions more legitimate.

Morality isn’t my opinion, its Divine command.

It is possible to construct a definition of morality that can be objectively measured without invoking God.

Morality is a function of the Divine. When you say the word “moral” you invoke G-d. No G-d no morals, its all just peoples opinion at that point.

 

[vsedriver]

If anything people will be good to keep themselves out of prison.

that’s not being good, that’s being law abiding.

 

[Ender]

I am poking holes in your reasoning.

Then you should limit your comments to what I’ve actually said and not comment on generic arguments I haven’t made.

Morality is a means of differentiating right from wrong. The claim that right from wrong can not be differentiated in the absence of God is clearly false.

In the absence of God, it is not that right and wrong cannot be differentiated but that right and wrong cannot exist as anything other than personal preference. In such a universe it would make no sense to say that murder is more immoral than wearing brown socks with black shoes. In both cases the term would be meaningless unless morality objectively exists. Are you making the claim for the objective existence of morality?

You seem to be arguing that the only way to discern those universals is through revelation.

Again, not my argument. The OP asked a specific question which you have not addressed: if God does not exist, why be good?

there is some means to differentiate right from wrong in the absence of God.

And what would that be? You have made a number of assertions that this is good or that is bad but you have provided no criteria whatever that allows someone to decide how to tell good from evil.

if there were no God, would you be raping your 13 year old neighbor? Would be a murderer? Of course not.

Why not? Some people make those choices; on what basis do you condemn them as wrong?

Ender

 

[Ender]

You also seem to be claiming that in order to disprove your assertion that morality is unknowable and undefinable without God I must display a complete universal moral system.

You start a lot of comments with “you seem to be claiming…”. Why don’t you just respond to what I actually say? I have not asked for a complete moral system, my question was much smaller: demonstrate that right and wrong exist.

You also have argued that because my example of a morality based in part on a belief in the inherent equal value of each person is not universally accepted then that can not be the basis of a moral system.

No, you missed the point. You made an assertion; I merely pointed out that there seemed to be little reason to accept that assertion in light of the fact that few people have ever acted as if they believed it was true. That is, it is not commonly believed, not obvious, and there is no reason to accept it. But again, you misconstrue the debate. Anything can be the basis of a moral system; the question is whether that basis can be more than personal preference, because if that’s all it is then the term is essentially meaningless.

You are the one making the claim. It is your obligation to prove it.

No, the OP was specific: why be good if God does not exist? My response was that it makes no sense to try. Your response has been … unresponsive.

Ender

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Morality isn’t my opinion, its Divine command.

Sure, lets assume God exists. Can it be proved that the Catholic morality is in fact the morality of God? Catholics would say yes, but Muslims and Jews would say no; keep in mind that all three worship the same God.

Morality is a function of the Divine. When you say the word “moral” you invoke G-d. No G-d no morals, its all just peoples opinion at that point.

No. I could say that the morality is minimization of suffering. We can objectively measure suffering; when defined that way, actions can be said to be objectively moral or immoral. There is no more “that’s immoral in my opinion,” only “that’s immoral because it increases suffering.” This definition does not require a god to decide morality.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Sure, lets assume God exists…

No one needs to assume it. That’s the beautiful thing about logical necessity. It can be no other way.

Can it be proved that the Catholic morality is in fact the morality of God?..

Of course. You have heard about the the whole Jesus incident haven’t you? G-d showed up as the Prophets predicted, then He started the Catholic Church by giving Peter authority. Jesus is G-d, hence “Catholic” morality is “G-ds morality”

No. I could say that the morality is minimization of suffering…

G-d defines morality by Divine command. It doesn’t matter what mere people think morality is.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

meltzerboy

Can you give me an example of a true believer who is a relativist?

 

[mcteague]

meltzerboy

Can you give me an example of a true believer who is a relativist?

Not to intrude. you are a Catholic. Cathoicism believes in the just war doctrine. The just war doctrine is a relativist position. Therefore you are a relativist.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

The just war doctrine is a relativist position.

Why?

A just war is always just. An unjust war is always unjust.

Murder is unjust.

Killing in self defense is just.

Is murder ever just?

Is killing in self defense unjust?

 

[Nooj]

As Dostoyevsky said, 'Without God all things are permitted."
This theme is addressed in detail in the fantastic book The Godless Delusion.

Dostoesvsky did not say that. A character did, Ivan Karamazov. In fact, that’s not even an accurate quotation.

And in response, I might say that all things may be permitted (by us), but all things may be prohibited (by us). Simone de Beauvoir, in her work ‘The Ethics of Ambiguity’ has much to say about this. Without God, our sins are unpardonable. That means we are terribly, terribly responsible. A world without God is one where our actions are immensely important. There is no one else to blame it on, no excuse to turn to, no one to make us clean.