Is Morality possible without God

  • Thread starter Thread starter defendermigs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Damian said:
Claiming that god is your reference for objective morality is no different to atheists than claiming the biggest strongest bully in the room is dictating your morality for you.
Click to expand...
This objection would have more traction against a Divine Command Theory of morality, but it doesn’t follow against a Natural Law theory of morality. From a Natural Law standpoint, you and I should be able to come to agree about many things by referring to a common reference point, like human dignity and fulfillment. Or, if we don’t necessarily agree, give us at least a common reference point for discussion and debate, rather than just talking past each other.
 
Damian said:
Claiming that god is your reference for objective morality is no different to atheists than claiming the biggest strongest bully in the room is dictating your morality for you.
Click to expand...
You’ve missed it - willfully I think.

I don’t care what you want to call “god” in this case. It can be a theistic figure, “natural law”, whatever.

The non-negotiable is that it must have a transcendent quality in order to invoke codification and compliance so that entire societies can function.

Please be absolutely certain, I don’t give a rip about anyone’s individual take on morality. I’m much, much more interested in what we appeal to as an authoritative basis for a common morality.
We can demonstrate that humans are actually part of reality.
Click to expand...
Don’t shift the goalposts. I’m not talking about “humans” being another sky-fairy. “Human Well-Being” is the sky-fairy you’re alluding to.

It dies to the same critiques one uses to dismiss god, in case you weren’t aware. You can’t measure it or objectively observe it. It’s another sky-fairy and you don’t like it when folks point that out.

I don’t blame you. No one likes seeing their personal “god” get picked on.

Unfortunately… Tough. This is the “Apologetics” part of the forum.
 
Last edited:
History also reveals the same evils attending religions. Morality is certainly possible without religion and it is very possible that written traditions within religions have their basis in human morality that is in turn reflected in religious texts. In fact, many evils have been committed in the name of religion as well as many good works. The difference between the evils committed in the name of religion and the evils committed in the 20th century by atheists such as Stalin and Mao, the atrocities committed by Stalin and Mao weren’t guided by or attributed to any doctrine or philosophy. They were simply abuses of power on the part of madmen. The writings of Marx were never cited as a call to exterminate or torture people, whilst many religious writings, philosophies and edicts do in fact call for such things. So, as a pragmatist, I would give religion credit for a lot of good work and credit for unleashing a lot of evil. Morality or lack thereof is a human affair. If this world was in fact created, it seems upon inspection that whatever created it doesn’t see good or evil, as they are existential imperatives to one another. Light is only known in relation to dark, high is only known in contrast to low and so on and so forth. If all was good, or all was bad, everything would stop, and as X.J.Kennedy pointed out, a heaven where everything worked as it should and all was good would be more of a mechanistic hell than a paradise. I imagine that this is in part why the human condition is attended by an itch that can’t be scratched,
and if we were in fact made, then it is implicit in our design and therefore a reflection of the mind of the maker, who knowing all things likely missed no details even as they relate to the probable outcomes of free will. If not, then we are the product of a frustrated tinkerer and certainly not omniscience.

All the best!
 
Last edited:
oldnskeptical said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Please be absolutely certain, I don’t give a rip about anyone’s individual take on morality. I’m much, much more interested in what we appeal to as an authoritative basis for a common morality.
Click to expand...
But couldn’t we then appeal to evolution as the authoritative basis for morality? Those morals which lead to survival are good, and those which lead to extinction are bad.
Click to expand...
So you’re comfotable with teleology/final causes in nature?
 
oldnskeptical said:
40.png
Vonsalza:
Please be absolutely certain, I don’t give a rip about anyone’s individual take on morality. I’m much, much more interested in what we appeal to as an authoritative basis for a common morality.
Click to expand...
But couldn’t we then appeal to evolution as the authoritative basis for morality? Those morals which lead to survival are good, and those which lead to extinction are bad.
Click to expand...
How does evolution objectively provide why something like rape is wrong? Serious question. In fact, I’d argue that consensual sex is something of an oddity in the animal kingdom…
 
oldnskeptical said:
40.png
Wesrock:
So you’re comfotable with teleology/final causes in nature?
Click to expand...
And what final cause, what purpose would that be? Survival? But evolution doesn’t give a whit about survival. In the end it may very well be that everything dies. So is that the end goal of evolution, that everything should die? Perhaps evolution really isn’t deciding what lives, it’s deciding what dies.

In the end though, evolution really doesn’t care. It has no goal, merely a function. The goal, if you perceive one, is only an illusion.
Click to expand...
I asked because you’re the one who suggested using evolution as a basis of objective morality, but that would require teleology.
 
oldnskeptical said:
40.png
Wesrock:
I asked because you’re the one who suggested using evolution as a basis of objective morality,
Click to expand...
As pointed out in the above post, I didn’t suggest that evolution is an objective basis for morality. I was responding to Vonsalza’s appeal for an authoritative basis for morality. There’s a a difference I think.
Click to expand...
But in what way would it be authoritative considering all value judgments about it, even “life good” and “extinction bad” would have no objective ground, from your perspective?
 
oldnskeptical said:
40.png
Wesrock:
But in what way would it be authoritative considering all value judgments about it, even “life good” and “extinction bad” would have no objective ground, from your perspective?
Click to expand...
The value judgment, “life good” and “extinction bad” are intrinsic to life itself. Existence is good, non-existence is bad.Therefore those attributes which lead to life are good, and those which lead to death are bad.
Click to expand...
While we could nuance this out more, I agree with the basic premise. But again, this is a qualitative assertion about nature, a value which can’t be empirically tested, a metaphysical assertion, and even a bit teleological. Are you comfortable with that?
In other words, even if you use God as the objective standard for good and bad. Why?
Click to expand...
Take what you said above and then combine it with my position that God is subsistent existence itself, unactualized actuality. Insofar as each thing exists, it’s a similitude, a little image, of God, who is it’s origin for existing. And the better a thing insantiates what it is, it becomes a better image.
 
Last edited:
Awesome, then I’ve only got to point out one thing-

The authoritative moral basis must appear transcendently objective so as to facilitate compliance. If it lacks this quality, the moral object is deemed arbitrary and readily violated.

Scroll up. That’s pretty much what I opened with.
 
If the Christian (et al) is right and God exists then both the Christian and the atheist can behave morally. If the atheist is right and there is no god then neither the Christian nor the atheist can behave morally as there would be no justification beyond personal preference for saying one actions is moral and another is immoral.

The fact that there are many religions, and that even within religions there are disputes about what is or is not a moral act is really irrelevant. That there are any number of wrong answers doesn’t mean there isn’t a right one. Like a teacher grading a test - the correct answers aren’t altered by what the students believe. If, however, there is no right answer then one guess is as good as another and the concept of right and wrong answers is farcical.

If there is no God, and therefore no external standard of right and wrong, then what is the argument that I should ever do anything not in my own best interest? Why is the question “What’s in it for me?” not the appropriate guide in deciding how I should live?
 
Would you accept morality if God was evil, A God who keeps you in eternal fire for no reason?
 
oldnskeptical said:
What your left with is to live by your own subjective morality, and hope that in the end it aligns with God’s. But you will never, ever know. So my standard of morality is just as good as yours.
Click to expand...
This is not actually an argument that your morality is as good as mine, it is an argument that morality does not in fact exist. If everything is subjective then you have no real basis to condemn any action as immoral; all you can realistically say is that you would have made a different choice. I mean this quite literally: in an “everything is subjective” world, choosing to murder a person instead of helping him is not morally different than choosing chocolate over vanilla. They are all merely personal preferences and there is no question of morality involved.
 
If there is no God there is no objective morality, the Naturalist has to accept objectively they have no more or less value than the worm in the ground. The problem however throughout history however is that man in EVERY civilization recognizes that he does have value and that they are above all the animals of the earth in their value and that their intellect is wired to some transcendence whether it be Theism, Deism or polytheism . Atheism just don’t satisfy the soul because it puts the souls into error. The fact that man is wired towards objective moral values which in turn points to a transcendent creator makes absolute sense if we were created in the first place. If man could be satisfied solely by the material then it would give weight that all he is, is a material being yet mans happiness comes from the spiritual. I sympathize much with atheists who are unable to make this connection, as for most people throughout all of history including most of us who alive today this understanding of things is pretty natural
 
True but such civilizations don’t last long, it always becomes their downfall. They rise because of their virtue and fall because of their vice and they had enough common sense in the end to understand to some extent the difference between the two, the secularist does not. I don’t need to prove to you that mans happiness is satisfied when he accepts the true value of his being compared to a man who does not. Surely you recognize this?
 
Last edited:
A good counter-clip is the following. A very good overview by a secular moral philosopher:

 
oldnskeptical said:
If there’s a God then there’s still an objective morality, and my moral standard is correct in-so-much as it aligns with God’s, just as yours is. The problem is that neither of us can judge the morality of the other.

You do realize that it’s always been that way. Your moral standard, whether you regarded it as objective or not, was only true in-so-far as it aligned with God’s.
Click to expand...
The question of this thread is whether morality is possible without God. It seems you assume that God exists and now have raised a second question: whether we can know his commandments. It also seems that you have indicated that we cannot know them, therefore one belief system is as good as any other. Do I understand your position correctly?
 
defendermigs said:
I have an atheist classmate arguing me about the existence of God, then he asks me IF morality is possible without the existence of God?
Click to expand...
Any “morality” is possible without a faith in the Christian God. Here are a few examples of a “morality” that is possible without faith in the “existence of God”.

Sodom and Gommora
Pagan Roman Empire
Cannibal Tribes
Nazism
Totalitarian government’s (that suppress and enslave peoples)
Communism
Racism
It is the Morality of the Christian God that civilized the human moral examples listed above.

An Atheist today has the freedom and liberty to practice a morality which they consider “good” at the expense of Christian believing Christians. An Atheist morality alone in a Islamic Moral society would not and could not survive.
 
In the beginning, there was Cain who practiced his own morality and killed his own brother Abel who practiced his morality in the service of God.

Why did Cain kill his brother Abel? and where is justice? The answer of Justice becomes relevant in the history of man and the covenant’s from the first Adam to the second Adam.

In the second Adam revealed in Jesus Christ, human history finds itself in a new and everlasting divine covenant. When the second Adam suffers and dies for all those past, present and future generations who sinned and suffered in justices. It is this new and everlasting Covenant in Jesus Christ which civilizes the evil and chaos in human history.

God the creator gives life and takes life. We will be surprised to find many in heaven, whom God has justified.

The opinion of ignorance exchanges a lie for a truth. Both the Jew who rejected God’s revelation and the Nazi who claimed to be a god suffered at their own judgement upon themselves.

Praise be Jesus Christ who resurrected from the dead and revealed in space and time that God indeed Lives and acts in human history.

I believe in God, because you who read this live today.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top