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

[ThinkingSapien]

So if, as I suggested, we define morality as the minimization of suffering, then isn’t it also legitimate? After all, the price we’d pay for being immoral is additional and unnecessary suffering.

That’s a definition I’ve heard before. Though it is difficult to always know what decisions will minimize suffering. Some things are “obviously” bad because how they can cause suffering is clear, but some other things are not always as clear because the “bad” is the result of collective actions or is removed in time or distance from the action that caused it. There are also some decisions in which you have to decide who will benefit and who will suffer from the decision and then it’s not clear how you evaluate the path of less suffering (ex: let’s say you have to decide who will receive an organ from an organ donor). In cases like this I’ve not encountered a secular or religious moral system that even so much as claims to have a grasp on what to do.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

That’s a definition I’ve heard before. Though it is difficult to always know what decisions will minimize suffering. Some things are “obviously” bad because how they can cause suffering is clear, but some other things are not always as clear because the “bad” is the result of collective actions or is removed in time or distance from the action that caused it. There are also some decisions in which you have to decide who will benefit and who will suffer from the decision and then it’s not clear how you evaluate the path of less suffering (ex: let’s say you have to decide who will receive an organ from an organ donor). In cases like this I’ve not encountered a secular or religious moral system that even so much as claims to have a grasp on what to do.

Difficulty does not invalidate a system. Just because there has not been much work done on quantifying suffering does not mean it is impossible. In fact, if we did quantify suffering on a wide scale over long periods of time, it is likely we would simply end up with a set of heuristics that would be able to help us make everyday decisions. Those heuristics might not even be that different from the Catholic codification of morality. The only difference would be that instead of following them for religious reasons, instead it would be understood that not doing so causes yourself and others to suffer.

 

[crazzeto]

Many non-believers are convinced moral laws don’t depend on the existence of God. They believe in being good for its own sake.

Yes, I understand this to be true. But isn’t it a bit of a fallocy… Ultimatly if one would attempt to accept that there is no God, then ulitimatly what you accept is that might is right. I know this isn’t what they would want to believe, but the fact is without God there is no clear objective reason why just taking a gun and shooting someone in the head isn’t necessarly totally and completely justifiable.

After all, simiarl stuff happens in nature all the time. If we use what is “natural” as the standard, then well… What about that moral code again?

 

[mcteague]

Yes, I understand this to be true. But isn’t it a bit of a fallocy… Ultimatly if one would attempt to accept that there is no God, then ulitimatly what you accept is that might is right. I know this isn’t what they would want to believe, but the fact is without God there is no clear objective reason why just taking a gun and shooting someone in the head isn’t necessarly totally and completely justifiable.

You have this backwards. Basing your morality on God is to completely embrace ‘might is right’. Who is the mightiest? God. Does God have to supply reasons? No Does God have to be fair or just? No. God might be fair, and he might supply reasons. But he does not have to. Why do people follow the morality of God? He is the mightiest. Therefore he right and you obey.

Whereas for non-God based moral systems to endure they must provide reasons. They can at times be based on might. But they do not have to be. God based morality is always based on might.

 

[crazzeto]

You have this backwards. Basing your morality on God is to completely embrace ‘might is right’. Who is the mightiest? God. Does God have to supply reasons? No Does God have to be fair or just? No. God might be fair, and he might supply reasons. But he does not have to. Why do people follow the morality of God? He is the mightiest. Therefore he right and you obey.

Whereas for non-God based moral systems to endure they must provide reasons. They can at times be based on might. But they do not have to be. God based morality is always based on might.

When God encarnated and came to this world, did he come in strength and glory? Did he bring armies of angles as he him self said he could at his trial? Or did he come another way? Did he come in humility, did he live an empoverished life? Did he die a humliating death?

Yes God is glory, his God is all powerful… But when God has come, and became one of us what did he choose to be?

No, I think my original statement is exactly pefect the way it was originally written.

 

[fhansen]

So if, as I suggested, we define morality as the minimization of suffering, then isn’t it also legitimate? After all, the price we’d pay for being immoral is additional and unnecessary suffering.

But maybe that’s the point. If we play a part in defining morality at all, then someone might define it as minimizing suffering while someone else might not give a hoot-unless maybe it involves their own suffering.

 

[Arkadin]

I don’t see how this is a problem since it seems so simple.

If no God, people would still be moral, but it wouldn’t have the absolute rigidities from religion. Our morals would be based on survival of the species and ourselves. It’s that simple “Golden Rule”, which is essential for survival. Animals show a very simplistic form of “morals” for the better of their community. It’s not complex like humans, but there are some instinctive rules that they have for the continual of their species. It’s all about survival.

You want to do good for others since this is the only life one has, why ruin it for others? Enjoy life, explore and protect one another so everyone can be happy.

Since the human race has been brought up on the idea that there is a God, it would be a bit troubling in the beginning to find out that no God existed. I fear that the majority of problems would be from those who believed in a God. These will be the people (not all) that will cause chaos. Few atheist and agnostics would be the cause of this since they already live a life without God and do live moral lives. GASP!

One can argue that atheists are more moral than believers. Atheists seek to do what they can for the survival of the species, try to take care of the Earth and seek advancements in science and medicine. Now, some believers seek these things too, but many believers live a life of trying to please God so they won’t suffer in hell (rather selfish, hm?) and focus more on the “world to come” rather than the world that is. With this, they focus less on helping the earth, helping the human species in medicine and science (this is not true for all, but many are not concerned about these fields), don’t care about studying our earth (a poster in another thread about the age of the earth, I believe, expressed his lack of caring in regards to studying geology since God created everything, so why bother?) and don’t strive to better the human species, but just the spiritual well-being.

Believers claim they have the truth, but how certain are you? The stories of Jesus were not written until much later and all one could rely on was oral tradition, which is far from being reliable. The fact that the bible does have conflicting stories about Jesus’ life (geneaology and why he was born in Bethlehem, resurrection, going to the desert or not, money-changers tables event, day of crucifixion) and historical errors (census, slaughtering of innocents), leads one to question. The last part of Mark’s gospel was proven to be added on later and not found in early copies! Matthew gets a prophet’s name mixed up!

There are some tribal communities that developed no religion or sense of God and are considered “atheistic”. They’ve survived for quite some time without God.

God and morality are separate. The morality with God is just what tribes subscribed to him for the continuation of their way of living and a means to justify the destruction of other tribes (just look at the wars in the Old Testament). It is a means to establish control and customs. Why is one act considered an abomination to God, but the act of wiping out the entire village/tribe and raping of untouched women in this tribe considered a good thing? To any human being, this is a rather immoral act.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Difficulty does not invalidate a system. Just because there has not been much work done on quantifying suffering does not mean it is impossible.

I don’t think it is impossible or invalid, just frequently neglected. I would be pleased to see more effort done in considering the ripple effect of decisions. (Emphasis In green technologies maybe a start, but hopefully not the only instance).

 

[fhansen]

What if God existed but he never punished anyone, or alternatively never rewarded anyone? Would there still be incentive to be good?

This is an interesting question. For all practical purposes there is no god here on earth-that’s the meaning of mans’ being exiled from the garden. So we receive no reward or punishment other than that which other humans may have the power and wherewithal and opportunity to mete out. So God doesn’t punish anyone now-ultimate justice for all the dehumanization and victimization that’s gone on in this world-in large and small ways- is said to be delayed for the time being, during our life here, so we can have the opportunity to have a change of heart as need be.

But justice is a good thing, no? And we believe that justice is ultimately foundational to this universe in some manner-which is perhaps why humans, themselves, are so doggone “morality-centric” BTW, and that love is also foundational so that any justice which is delivered would be done so with abounding fairness and equanimity. That’s all.

Would people still be good without a god? Well, some are now, while some aren’t-we’re certainly quite radically free to do whatever we want so freedom, itself, guarantees no moral perfection. But I think most of us already follow an innate natural law or conscience to at least some extent but one that we don’t necessarily acknowledge and aren’t necessarily compelled or obliged to follow. So belief in God is sort of like acknowledging that nature, itself, has provided a correct moral path for us and that there’s an imperative of some sort that we follow it for our own well-being, happiness, and hope of continued existence in an even better life yet. In very general terms many other, non-Christian, religions also point in this direction.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If no God, people would still be moral, but it wouldn’t have the absolute rigidities from religion. Our morals would be based on survival of the species and ourselves.

I expressed this in a previous post, but I think we can do better than that and try to ensure the survival of other species too. I think we are capable of seeing after ourselves, other species, and the environment.

 

[tonyrey]

Many non-believers are convinced moral laws don’t depend on the existence of God. They believe in being good for its own sake.

I agree with you. One atheist on this forum called our moral aversion to the torture of children (even more shocking than that of adults) as “sentimentality”. Most would attribute it to evolved empathy!

I should have written “They think they believe in being good for its own sake”…

 

[Ender]

If no God, people would still be moral

Define morality; what do you mean when you say people would be moral? How are we to distinguish a moral act from an immoral one?

Our morals would be based on survival of the species and ourselves. It’s that simple “Golden Rule”, which is essential for survival. Animals show a very simplistic form of “morals” for the better of their community.

One thing I have never seen applied either to animals or the concept of the survival of the fittest is that it is moral. For example, the first thing a male lion does when taking over a new pride (after killing or driving off the old male) is to kill all the nursing kittens so that the females will mate with him. When times are hard the strongest eat first, the smallest and weakest eat last … if anything is left. It may be good for the pride but let’s not pretend there is anything moral about it.

You want to do good for others since this is the only life one has, why ruin it for others?

Why would I care about the good of others if it interferes with what is good for me? Why would I ever do anything that was not in my own best interest … why would I not behave like the male lion does?

To any human being, this is a rather immoral act.

If a person does something he believes to be moral, how would you determine whether or not he was correct?

 

[Arkadin]

Define morality; what do you mean when you say people would be moral? How are we to distinguish a moral act from an immoral one? One thing I have never seen applied either to animals or the concept of the survival of the fittest is that it is moral. For example, the first thing a male lion does when taking over a new pride (after killing or driving off the old male) is to kill all the nursing kittens so that the females will mate with him. When times are hard the strongest eat first, the smallest and weakest eat last … if anything is left. It may be good for the pride but let’s not pretend there is anything moral about it. Why would I care about the good of others if it interferes with what is good for me? Why would I ever do anything that was not in my own best interest … why would I not behave like the male lion does? If a person does something he believes to be moral, how would you determine whether or not he was correct?

I’ll simply respond with “Do unto others as you would like done unto you.”

 

[wynnejj]

Thank you all for great insights and thoughts on such a serious matter.

Let’s take a moment for a short message from our sponsor before we get back to the program…

Support mental health, or I’ll kill you!

Thank you. We now will get back to our discussion thread.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Arkadin;8131643:

Our morals would be based on survival of the species and ourselves. It’s that simple “Golden Rule”, which is essential for survival. Animals show a very simplistic form of “morals” for the better of their community.

One thing I have never seen applied either to animals or the concept of the survival of the fittest is that it is moral.

I wouldn’t call it moral either. Though I wouldn’t really spend much time evaluating the morality of animal behaviour any more than I would evaluate the morality of an infant’s behaviour since they (presumably) have limited cognition and a low capacity for evaluating the morality of their behaviour.

I’m also a proponent of not trying to use species lines as a tool for evaluating where we should draw the lines of our own morality and instead I think we should try to go beyond the boundaries of species lines. I’ve got a concern that if some one were to try to use species lines for establishing a limit that the though might extrapolate from it that they should also define moral limits that prefer what ever they define their in group to be ( nation, ethnic group, religion, social class, gender, what ever). I’d like to steer clear of that.

 

[LostTruth28]

I wouldn’t call it moral either. Though I wouldn’t really spend much time evaluating the morality of animal behaviour any more than I would evaluate the morality of an infant’s behaviour since they (presumably) have limited cognition and a low capacity for evaluating the morality of their behaviour.

I’m also a proponent of not trying to use species lines as a tool for evaluating where we should draw the lines of our own morality and instead I think we should try to go beyond the boundaries of species lines. I’ve got a concern that if some one were to try to use species lines for establishing a limit that the though might extrapolate from it that they should also define moral limits that prefer what ever they define their in group to be ( nation, ethnic group, religion, social class, gender, what ever). I’d like to steer clear of that.

God is the only reason we have value over animals. Remove God and we are just another critter on this ball of rock. Why should I suffer for you when it would be to my best interest to have you suffer for me. I’m gonna paint a target on my chest really quick here and say that the Nazis were a truly Godless nation during world war II and it worked. Had they succeeded, they would have become like gods themselves in an attempt to spread their Godless ways to the far reaches of the globe. And if God did not exist, who is to say they were wrong? The acted like animals…exactly what we are without God.

People really think God and goodness are two separate things? Remove one from the equation and you don’t have the other. Any christian should have learned this as a child.

 

[Nooj]

The acted like animals…exactly what we are without God.

Animals tear themselves apart for food and sustinence. They do it to survive. We kill each other for enjoyment and ideologies, because we have reason and a free will given by God. If we were truly animals, that would be better. But we’re humans, and the shame of that fact should also be implicated upon the Creator who made us so.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

People really think God and goodness are two separate things?

Some people do, some people don’t. Many people don’t mean the same thing by the word “god”. I’m sure you are talking about one of the concepts of god that is known by the name Yahweh among others but in talking about what people think I can’t restrict to consideration of what you think. Some of the meanings cannot be reconciled against each other. Since you are talking about what people think consideration of that some one means by the word. (Ever head of ignosticism?)

God is the only reason we have value over animals. Remove God and we are just another critter on this ball of rock.

Value itself is a subjective concept, in other words it is dependent on a mind. In the above sentence I am assuming the valuer that is holding a higher value on humans is the entity that matches your concept of god. If this entity does not exists people still have the values that the hold in each other.

Why should I suffer for you when it would be to my best interest to have you suffer for me.

I doubt that you would. Whether you willingly do so or not is going to be dependent on whether or not you hold more value in your own well being or my well being. If my suffering is great and if the extent of my suffering were made known to you, then you might inconvenience yourself to reduce my suffering with limits applied to your willingness to inconvenience. If I were a person to which you had a strong emotional attachment you might then be willing to take on the suffering yourself to protect me from it. It’s not necessary to determine whether or not there exists deities to see this behaviour.

I’m gonna paint a target on my chest really quick here and say that the Nazis were a truly Godless nation during world war II and it worked.

How does that paint a target on your chest?

Had they succeeded, they would have become like gods themselves in an attempt to spread their Godless ways to the far reaches of the globe.

Just as different people have different concepts of what “god” means different people have different things in mind when they say some one “has become like god.” But I’m going to guess you mean politically powerful here.

And if God did not exist, who is to say they were wrong?

There were people in Nazi Germany whose behaviours indicate that they disagreed with the Nazi’s methods. They would be a good starting place for identifying those that would say that the actions of the Nazis were wrong. The assimilation of the other nations in the world also wouldn’t preclude survivors from being able to evaluate the actions as wrong. There are Americans of European descent that morally evaluate the European expansion of North America and the genocide of it’s native people wrong. It’s a smaller parallel of the scenario that you described but I don’t see any hints of the outcome you described.

The acted like animals…exactly what we are without God.

Does that also mean that you would find the behaviour of any nation that has no gods to be a nation of people that act like animals? What about nations in which the people worship other gods or have a different concept of god than you?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Nooj

**We kill each other for enjoyment and ideologies, because we have reason and a free will given by God. If we were truly animals, that would be better. But we’re humans, and the shame of that fact should also be implicated upon the Creator who made us so. **

God made us free so that we might choose between good and evil. Thus we are destined either for glory or for shame … the choice is ours, not God’s.

 

[LostTruth28]

Some people do, some people don’t. Many people don’t mean the same thing by the word “god”. I’m sure you are talking about one of the concepts of god that is known by the name Yahweh among others but in talking about what people think I can’t restrict to consideration of what you think. Some of the meanings cannot be reconciled against each other. Since you are talking about what people think consideration of that some one means by the word. (Ever head of ignosticism?)

Value itself is a subjective concept, in other words it is dependent on a mind. In the above sentence I am assuming the valuer that is holding a higher value on humans is the entity that matches your concept of god. If this entity does not exists people still have the values that the hold in each other.

I doubt that you would. Whether you willingly do so or not is going to be dependent on whether or not you hold more value in your own well being or my well being. If my suffering is great and if the extent of my suffering were made known to you, then you might inconvenience yourself to reduce my suffering with limits applied to your willingness to inconvenience. If I were a person to which you had a strong emotional attachment you might then be willing to take on the suffering yourself to protect me from it. It’s not necessary to determine whether or not there exists deities to see this behaviour.

How does that paint a target on your chest?

Just as different people have different concepts of what “god” means different people have different things in mind when they say some one “has become like god.” But I’m going to guess you mean politically powerful here.

There were people in Nazi Germany whose behaviours indicate that they disagreed with the Nazi’s methods. They would be a good starting place for identifying those that would say that the actions of the Nazis were wrong. The assimilation of the other nations in the world also wouldn’t preclude survivors from being able to evaluate the actions as wrong. There are Americans of European descent that morally evaluate the European expansion of North America and the genocide of it’s native people wrong. It’s a smaller parallel of the scenario that you described but I don’t see any hints of the outcome you described.

Does that also mean that you would find the behaviour of any nation that has no gods to be a nation of people that act like animals? What about nations in which the people worship other gods or have a different concept of god than you?

Spoken like someone who believes truth is relative, or so it sounds. I would say anyone without the one True God is an animal. They carelessly seek one prey after another trying in vain to satisfy the hole within them.

BTW to an earlier post, free will isn’t they ability to choose between opposites, it’s the ability to choose the good. Free as in not captive. No person has the inalienable right to choose evil, but we do it anyway. Sin enslaves, God frees.