Morality without God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Charlemagne_II

Guest
How can a civilization develop a moral consensus on anything without reference to the commandments of God?

“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” George Washington

Do a thought experiment. Imagine a perfectly non-religious society. From whence would morals be derived, and by what (whose) authority?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
How can a civilization develop a moral consensus on anything without reference to the commandments of God?

“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” George Washington

Do a thought experiment. Imagine a perfectly non-religious society. From whence would morals be derived, and by what (whose) authority?
Click to expand...
Isn’t this precisely why Socrates argued against the Sophists, and ended up drinking the hemlock? To prove that there HAD to be some sort of moral absolutes, as opposed to the moral relativism that the Sophists believed in? It was Protagoras, the famous Sophist who said “Man is the measure of all things”.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
How can a civilization develop a moral consensus on anything without reference to the commandments of God?
Click to expand...
On natural law, which God implanted in every human heart. Civilizations did do this before God revealed his Law to Moses.
“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” George Washington
Click to expand...
He was right but reason and experience alone are not the final guarantees, as we can see in our own times when religion has been twisted to fit the “me first” mentality our society has adopted.
Do a thought experiment. Imagine a perfectly non-religious society. From whence would morals be derived, and by what (whose) authority?
Click to expand...
It’s been done. Thoman More’s Utopia is a good example. 🙂
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Do a thought experiment. Imagine a perfectly non-religious society. From whence would morals be derived, and by what (whose) authority?
Click to expand...
It does not have to be “perfect” - whatever it means. A smoothly working society would derive its morals from the principle of reciprocity (which translates into the two versions of the golden rule). That is all that is needed. Do not harm others. Respect others. “The right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. No deity needed there. Reason is sufficient. And, of course, no “authority” is needed!

Of course this society would be highly “sinful”. 🤷
 
Tyrion

** A smoothly working society would derive its morals from the principle of reciprocity (which translates into the two versions of the golden rule). That is all that is needed. Do not harm others. Respect others. “The right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. No deity needed there. Reason is sufficient. And, of course, no “authority” is needed! **

But without God, there would be no reason for everybody to be reasonable. The man who says “The right of my fist is unlimited” cannot be challenged as immoral if his the power of his fist is unlimited. In that case, what good is an appeal to reason? Think Hitler and Mao, both creators of dominantly atheist regimes.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
But without God, there would be no reason for everybody to be reasonable.
Click to expand...
Everyone? There will always be deviants and dissenters. Was there no Inquisition in those societies which were governed in God’s name? Was there no burning of heretics in God’s name? Those socities now belong to the trash heap of history, and for good reason. It is enough that most people would be reasonable - and that is what I presented as the thought experiment.
Charlemagne_II said:
The man who says “The right of my fist is unlimited” cannot be challenged as immoral if his the power of his fist is unlimited.
Click to expand...
Name one man whose fist has “unlimited” power. I am not even interested in challenging such a man (if it existed) on moral grounds. I would use force in self-defense - the only time when using force is justifyable.
Charlemagne_II said:
In that case, what good is an appeal to reason? Think Hitler and Mao, both creators of dominantly atheist regimes.
Click to expand...
They were repressive, totalitarian regimes. They were overthrown by reasonable ones. And they did NOT emerge from a regime which I offered up as a thought experiment. Why don’t you try to argue against what I actually offered? It would be more productive.
 
Tyrion

They were repressive, totalitarian regimes.

Tell that to the millions who were annihilated by them. You obviously have not read history, or as an atheist you have conveniently forgotten it.
 
Derived from the authority of 1) a monarch or ruling body, or 2) “science”, which almost invariably means evolutionary doctrine and/or social Darwinism.

An example of this, several examples of this perfectly godless society, have been seen in practice: Revolutionary France and the Soviet Union.
 
Tyrion

Totally irrelevant in the scope of YOUR thread.

Not at all. Any dictator who raises his fist and claims that he rules by the use of reason is a liar, not a truth teller. Rationalists are rank relativists. If you think not, try taking a course in the history of philosophy since the Middle Ages. Every philosopher reasons to the truth by his own logic, but they can’t all be right because almost all of them contradict each other.

In a society without God, which moral system prevails? The rational one? But how can they all be rational when they all contradict each other, and evil men cannot be held accountable to a Higher Power? :confused:
 
Charlemagne_II said:
In a society without God, which moral system prevails? The rational one? But how can they all be rational when they all contradict each other, and evil men cannot be held accountable to a Higher Power? :confused:
Click to expand...
You asked about a thought experiment where there is no appeal to some deity. I gave you one. Now you talk about something totally different. Can you prove that in a system where MUTUAL respect is the underlying moral framework there will ALWAYS be a dictator emerging? I don’t think so.

If MOST people subscribe to the concept of mutual respect, then the society will function as smoothly as possible, because the possible dissenters (which can only be a handful) will be kept in check by the rest of the people.

Are you interested in discussing what you actually presented? If not, just say it, and I will ignore you.
 
How about morality with God? How does that work? If we can agree on that, then we will be able to compare and contrast such a world to a world without God.

The Euthyphro dilemma:
“Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?”
Click to expand...
Your move, sir.
 
Tyrion

**If MOST people subscribe to the concept of mutual respect, then the society will function as smoothly as possible, because the possible dissenters (which can only be a handful) will be kept in check by the rest of the people. **

This concept of mutual respect is derived from Christianity. But you do not find it in largely irreligious societies … such as North Korea. You did not find it much among the ancient Romans, who celebrated mutual respect by throwing Christians to the lions.

Can you prove that in a system where MUTUAL respect is the underlying moral framework there will ALWAYS be a dictator emerging?

As I said, mutual respect is largely a Christian principle. Where are you going to find it where there is no Christianity? Even among Christians it is not universally practiced. Yet it is the obligatory ideal, is it not? Why would it be the obligatory ideal among those who have no religion?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
This concept of mutual respect is derived from Christianity.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. No religion is respectful toward other religions. All are based upon the concept that “my god is bigger than your god”, and “we are right and you are wrong”. The muslims used to be “horrible heathens to be put to the sword”, the Jews used to be the “killers of Jesus”. So wake up, buddy - just look at the recent conflict in Ireland where catholics and protestants were slaughtering each other. Not to mention that the concept expressed by the golden rule(s) is MUCH more ancient than christianity.
Charlemagne_II said:
But you do not find it in largely irreligious societies … such as North Korea.
Click to expand...
I do find it - in the Scandinavian countries. which are as irreligious as they come. You have this bad habit of equating atheism with totalitarian systems, as if there would be a causation that atheism leads logically to despotism. And you (in the generic sense!) always throw a hissy fit when someone points out the atrocities of the inquisition. You keep on asserting that it was just a “few” bad apples, and it had nothing to do with christianity. Yet, it was the logical corollary of those times. So better stop throwing around those bricks… you live in a glass house.
Charlemagne_II said:
Yet it is the obligatory ideal, is it not? Why would it be the obligatory ideal among those who have no religion?
Click to expand...
There is nothing “obligatory” about it. If you knew game theory then it would be obvious that there are many ways and means of conflict resolution, and the best one is based upon the concept of reciprocity. This is a mathematical theorem, which is PROVEN. There is no authority which needs to be consulted.

I have to repeat that YOU asked for a thought experiment, and I provided you with one. You keep on talking about other things, which have nothing to do with my reply.
 
Look at our world now, there are plenty of morality instilling institutions yet immorality is rampant. Turn on the news and pick up the paper to see one horror after the other.

Consequences (jail, fines etc.) are often times what prevents further immorality, not necessarily Gods laws. Currently we have a society that derives it’s rules from God ordained principles but a civilization could function with just made made rules. It would be quite empty however.
 
Tyrion

**Not to mention that the concept expressed by the golden rule(s) is MUCH more ancient than christianity. **

Christ taught it, and it became universally recognized because he demonstrated it by his life and death. To this day it is principally associated with him and no one else.

**I do find it - in the Scandinavian countries. which are as irreligious as they come. You have this bad habit of equating atheism with totalitarian systems, as if there would be a causation that atheism leads logically to despotism. And you (in the generic sense!) always throw a hissy fit when someone points out the atrocities of the inquisition. You keep on asserting that it was just a “few” bad apples, and it had nothing to do with christianity. Yet, it was the logical corollary of those times. So better stop throwing around those bricks… you live in a glass house. **

I have been to Sweden several times to visit relatives. There is no God there except the State. They are not a happy people.

The hissy fit of the Inquisition was mild compared to the hissy fit of Atheistic communism worldwide in the last hundred years.

“The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.” Psalm 14

The logic of atheism leads to the philosophy of the Marquis de Sade, who used atheism to justify all abominations and cruelties. Read some history.

What is there is Christ’s teachings that preach abomination and cruelty? The Inquisition was a repudiation of Christ, not a “logical corollary” of his teachings.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
How can a civilization develop a moral consensus on anything without reference to the commandments of God?

“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” George Washington

Do a thought experiment. Imagine a perfectly non-religious society. From whence would morals be derived, and by what (whose) authority?
Click to expand...
If it wouldn’t have been for the preceding Jewish, Christian and other laws, we wouldn’t be moral. Atheism has no morals as it has no moral absolutes to draw upon. Who would they use to measure themselves against? Each other? Humans are fallible…
 
mymamamary said:
If it wouldn’t have been for the preceding Jewish, Christian and other laws, we wouldn’t be moral. Atheism has no morals as it has no moral absolutes to draw upon. Who would they use to measure themselves against? Each other? Humans are fallible…
Click to expand...
Then again, how do we know that God is infallible?
 
VeritasLuxMea said:
Then again, how do we know that God is infallible?
Click to expand...
Well, there has to be something that is infallible, so as to be able to hold fallible beings (humans) to a standard. To have something or Someone in a position over us, that Person would need to be infallible as we are fallible. Fallible would have no reason to lord over fallible, so the being must be infallible, and that being must be GOD as infallibility= Perfection, a attribute of GOD.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top