Moral without God?

[Nootmeg]

Hello everyone I’m a senior at RIT in Rochester. Next week I am part of a discussion with the RIT Skeptics and representatives of other religions on campus entitled “Can you be Moral without God?”. I figured it could be of great value to me to talk to others about good arguments and standpoints Roman Catholics hold in this area.

Here are some more details on the event listed on the event page

“Join us for a debate/discussion on the origins of morality and its ties to God and Religion. Can an atheist still be a good person? Is God the source of morals?
How should we as a group of theists and rationalists reconcile scientific knowledge, social implications of behavior, and modern society in general?”

This is obviously a pretty vast topic. Any thoughts would be much appreciated. Thank you in advance!

 

[dcrowmik]

Is God the source of morals?

Perhaps you can reflect on this: God is the source of ALL good. Therefore, if He is all good (which is the source of morality), any evil act is going to be immoral.

One, then, must differentiate between the act and the actor when discussing morals. In essence, one who does not believe in God can perform good (i.e. moral) acts while a true believer of God can perform evil (immoral) acts and vice versa.

So don’t get caught in the trap of arguing moral vs. immoral persons. Focus on the acts themselves.

 

[Nootmeg]

with that being the case, do atheists need religion. What role does religion play in morals. Why religion if you can acheive the same end moral goals through secular humanism.

 

[dcrowmik]

with that being the case, do atheists need religion. What role does religion play in morals. Why religion if you can acheive the same end moral goals through secular humanism.

Do you mean religion – or faith and belief?

To the second part of your question, can one who has no faith, no belief in God, do something that is good, something that one who does believe consider to be moral? Yes. However, to the faithless person is it a moral act? If one does not have faith – or believes in a nothingness that the disbelief of God presupposes – then, to them, isn’t their action neither moral or immoral?

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

“Atheists are good people; they’re just not ‘God’ people.”

People, in general, are good, but you get bad people on both sides of the spectrum, and, sometimes, religion (or lack there of) isn’t necessarily a factor. (However, I’ll be honest in saying, I believe people in general are evil, but there are good people on both sides.)

Then again, the concepts of good and evil are subjective, and therefore, vary from person to person. I only say that to be fair.

Ironically Yours, Blade and Blood

 

[dcrowmik]

Then again, the concepts of good and evil are subjective, and therefore, vary from person to person. I only say that to be fair.

If good and evil are subjective, then does that not mean that your good may be my evil and vice versa? If that is the case then doesn’t that mean there is no absolute morality? If there is no absolute morality then there is no God. Or, if you consider your good as good but I consider it as not and you and I base those value judgments based only on our own individual feelings (which would be subjective from each other’s points of views), then doesn’t that make us really our own gods? By becoming our own gods we have done excatly what Satan wants – separating ourselves from God.

Without God there is no absoluteness. Without absoluteness there is no morality. Everything becomes simply relative – relative to you or relative to me or relative to the person next door, down the street, two floors up, etc., etc.

 

[Blade_and_Blood]

If good and evil are subjective, then does that not mean that your good may be my evil and vice versa? If that is the case then doesn’t that mean there is no absolute morality? If there is no absolute morality then there is no God. Or, if you consider your good as good but I consider it as not and you and I base those value judgments based only on our own individual feelings (which would be subjective from each other’s points of views), then doesn’t that make us really our own gods? By becoming our own gods we have done excatly what Satan wants – separating ourselves from God.

Without God there is no absoluteness. Without absoluteness there is no morality. Everything becomes simply relative – relative to you or relative to me or relative to the person next door, down the street, two floors up, etc., etc.

You’re right. …to an extent.

Humans aren’t completely clueless when it comes to morals without God. There would still be good and bad because the human brain would still have a sense to what’s necessary in order to survive and protect each other.

… Let’s not bring Satan into this. There’s no need to point fingers.

Ironically Yours.

 

[saieditor]

Hello everyone I’m a senior at RIT in Rochester. Next week I am part of a discussion with the RIT Skeptics and representatives of other religions on campus entitled “Can you be Moral without God?”. I figured it could be of great value to me to talk to others about good arguments and standpoints Roman Catholics hold in this area.

Here are some more details on the event listed on the event page

“Join us for a debate/discussion on the origins of morality and its ties to God and Religion. Can an atheist still be a good person? Is God the source of morals?
How should we as a group of theists and rationalists reconcile scientific knowledge, social implications of behavior, and modern society in general?”

This is obviously a pretty vast topic. Any thoughts would be much appreciated. Thank you in advance!

Morals are values you live by.

Values guide the choices we make. Choices are expressed in behaviour. So you can write it like this

Behaviour → is based on choices → which are guided by values

And values are always perceived to be good and beneficial by the mind and ego. Intellect and reason may or may not guide the person in their underlying motivation for behaviour. Often, desire, feelings or reactions motivate behaviour - and this is thoughtless, unreflected action where the person concerned has failed to consult their faculties of common sense, spiritual sense, intellect or reason.

Someone may hold a value which is in conflict with the agreed values of society. The law courts are basically where we work out our social values, the social sense of right and wrong, good and bad. Like it or not, the Church has, to a large degree lost its agency of informing the populace at large. Now, all the church does is gives moral guidance. Mind you, millions upon millions follow this guidance, including non-Catholics.

There are transcendental values. Truth, Right Conduct, Love, Peace and Non-violence are common to all cultures and to all religions. These values are the highest essences, thoughts, inspiriations, feelings and guides to the forward progress of humanity. Practice of these values leads to nobility and true humanness. True humanness is following human values and behaving in accord with these values.

So that brings us back to where I started.

Behaviour → is based on choices → which is guided by values.

 

[diggerdomer]

Hello everyone I’m a senior at RIT in Rochester. Next week I am part of a discussion with the RIT Skeptics and representatives of other religions on campus entitled “Can you be Moral without God?”. I figured it could be of great value to me to talk to others about good arguments and standpoints Roman Catholics hold in this area.

Here are some more details on the event listed on the event page

“Join us for a debate/discussion on the origins of morality and its ties to God and Religion. Can an atheist still be a good person? Is God the source of morals?
How should we as a group of theists and rationalists reconcile scientific knowledge, social implications of behavior, and modern society in general?”

This is obviously a pretty vast topic. Any thoughts would be much appreciated. Thank you in advance!

Wow, great opportunity. Good for you for being a part of it and for seeking (name removed by moderator)ut.

Yes, of course one can be moral/good without God…I’m assuming of course that means that the individual who considers herself/himself moral/good is at the same time not professing any belief in God.

St. Paul in the letter to the Romans perhaps best addresses this issue as he writes to a community that he can’t presume is familiar with the God of Israel and the Old Testament Scriptures. Much of what he writes here we talk about today in terms of “natural law.” Whether or not an individual acknowledges or believes in God (however he or she defines God), they are God’s children and recipients of God’s grace.

Again, good for you for entering into dialogue. Find the common ground and capitalize on it. Share your beliefs honestly, as you understand them. Listen to and respect the views of others.

Best wishes.

 

[phantasm]

Perhaps you can reflect on this: God is the source of ALL good. .

Your God is also the source of all evil.

God committed all sorts of horrific acts as recorded in the Bible, including killing babies, children and women. When God slaughtered everyone in the great flood, that includes his decision to destroy all of the zygotes and unborn children inside of women. God didn’t just will these people dead, he made sure to scare the heck out of them by drowning them.

Is your great God immoral?

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, NIV)

Don’t try and rationalize your way out by messing with the word disaster.

disaster;

a calamitous event, esp. one occurring suddenly and causing great loss of life, damage, or hardship, as a flood, airplane crash, or business failure.

 

[saieditor]

Your God is also the source of all evil.

God committed all sorts of horrific acts as recorded in the Bible, including killing babies, children and women. When God slaughtered everyone in the great flood, that includes his decision to destroy all of the zygotes and unborn children inside of women. God didn’t just will these people dead, he made sure to scare the heck out of them by drowning them.

Is your great God immoral?

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, KJV)

I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things. (Isaiah 45:7, NIV)

Appreciate your reply and appreciate your right to make these observations.

Don’t try and rationalize your way out by messing with the word disaster.

disaster;

a calamitous event, esp. one occurring suddenly and causing great loss of life, damage, or hardship, as a flood, airplane crash, or business failure.

This is where you are going off topic, and off the rails. This thread is about participating in a forum entitled “Can you be moral without God”; it is not a thread about the etymology of the word disaster, its meanings, and examples of disasters.

You have the right of reply.

You have the duty of staying on topic.

 

[Ender]

Can an atheist still be a good person?

Religious faith is not required for someone to behave in a manner we define as good so an atheist can be good just as a believer can be bad. This assumes of course that good and bad actually exist, a problem you can demonstrate by trying to get someone to explain in non-religious terms why (e.g.) murder is immoral. I’m familiar with two explanations: “Everyone agrees/knows/believes …” and “It’s harmful to society”. The first is the morality-is-determined-by-consensus approach and the other is simple utilitarianism (?? I’m sure there is some appropriate term here) - it may be true but it isn’t a moral explanation.

Is God the source of morals?

Is there any other possible source? Evolution? Since we hold that animal behavior is completely amoral it seems like a pretty big stretch to say morality evolved. As stated by Ernst Mayr (What Evolution Is - 2001): “Altruism toward strangers is a behavior not supported by natural selection.” On the other hand, without a very specific definition of what morality actually means there is no way to answer this question. A number of people think what is moral is what is useful, helpful, beneficial …

How should we as a group of theists and rationalists reconcile scientific knowledge, social implications of behavior, and modern society in general?"

What can science explain about morality given that it cannot be weighed or measured? It may perhaps try to explain why people behave “morally” but it cannot say whether that behavior is actually moral or little more than social conditioning and instinct.

Dostoyevski believed that: “Where God is, all things are possible; where God is not, all things are permissible.” I think this is pretty much true. If believers are right and God exists then both the believer and the atheist can behave morally because there is a standard against which behavior can be judged and belief in the creator of that standard is not a requirement to behaving in accordance with it. If the atheist is right, however, then neither he nor the believer could behave morally as morality itself would not exist.

All of these comments, however, depend on the definition of morality and no discussion should proceed until the term has been defined. Know that if the definition depends primarily on the consequences of an act then it’s not a definition that has anything to do with Christianity and defining morality in such terms predetermines that God is not necessary either for “morality” to exist or for anyone to behave “morally”, and the debate is over before it can begin.

Ender