Morality without God?

[Charlemagne_II]

Portofino

**Sure, tyrants are still in power – as absolute monarchs were in power in Europe, for many centuries – but, in the long haul, such leaders are ultimately dethroned, once the great mass of people know and believe that “he is a man, just as we are – no better than we”; and that much of the power he holds over us is psychological. **

Exactly. In most cases tyrants have been overcome by the religious principle that all men are equal before God, all men are loved by God, and the person who is full of power and hate should be dethroned by the grace and power of God. The people who went into battle against Hitler had God on their side. Even atheistic Russia during World War II empowered the Churches to enlist them in the war against Hitler.

russian-crafts.com/customs/russian-church-history.html

 

[mymamamary]

Even when referring to the commandments of Yahweh there can be disagreements on morality among people within a society.

Sure there are. Thats a subjective deviation from an objective law. The law itself is objective. However there are subjective circumstances that mitigate culpability.

 

[mymamamary]

Portofino

**Sure, tyrants are still in power – as absolute monarchs were in power in Europe, for many centuries – but, in the long haul, such leaders are ultimately dethroned, once the great mass of people know and believe that “he is a man, just as we are – no better than we”; and that much of the power he holds over us is psychological. **

Exactly. In most cases tyrants have been overcome by the religious principle that all men are equal before God, all men are loved by God, and the person who is full of power and hate should be dethroned by the grace and power of God. The people who went into battle against Hitler had God on their side. Even atheistic Russia during World War II empowered the Churches to enlist them in the war against Hitler.

russian-crafts.com/customs/russian-church-history.html

In total agreement here…

 

[Baelor]

There is no way to justify objective morality without appeal to the supernatural.

 

[mymamamary]

There is no way to justify objective morality without appeal to the supernatural.

Amen.

Because, if You have no infallible supernatural being to hold Morality to, then you are lost. We cannot use Human consensus for right and wrong as we all know how that turns out (Hitler, Stalin etc), So there must be a GOD to hold us accountable to an objective law.

One of my favorite questions
“Is the fact that there is no objective truth, an objective truth?”

 

[Birdpreacher]

Amen.

Because, if You have no infallible supernatural being to hold Morality to, then you are lost. We cannot use Human consensus for right and wrong as we all know how that turns out (Hitler, Stalin etc), So there must be a GOD to hold us accountable to an objective law.

One of my favorite questions
“Is the fact that there is no objective truth, an objective truth?”

The thing is that the Aztecs were using the supernatural as basis for their belief that sacrificing people made the “Gods” happy. The supernatural can lead to some misbehaving as well i.e. Sending serfs’ kids on a Children’s Crusades/Jihad/etc.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Birdpreacher

**The thing is that the Aztecs were using the supernatural as basis for their belief that sacrificing people made the “Gods” happy. The supernatural can lead to some misbehaving as well i.e. Sending serfs’ kids on a Children’s Crusades/Jihad/etc. **

Even in established religions some are dedicated to demon worship, not the worship of the true God.

The 12th century Children’s Crusade is largely a myth. Certainly, whatever happened there, it was not ordered by God, no matter what anyone says. These children never fought in the crusade. Some of them were sold by exploiters into slavery.

 

[mymamamary]

The thing is that the Aztecs were using the supernatural as basis for their belief that sacrificing people made the “Gods” happy. The supernatural can lead to some misbehaving as well i.e. Sending serfs’ kids on a Children’s Crusades/Jihad/etc.

GOD is Pure and Innocent. We can interpret HIS Objective law sbjectively and we do. Take the aptly called “Cafteria Catholics” as an example. They follow the Churchs stance on social justice, yet when it comes to contraception, “Nah, its ok, I’m not hurting anybody right???”. These are instances of humans being human and taking the wrong interpretation of GODS Law. Hence the reason that we desperately need the assistance of the HOLY SPIRIT. Without the HOLY SPIRIT we can and do interpret GODS Law and Decrees the wrong way (Take a look at the Protestants, 50,000 different denominations of JUST Protestants, Im not even considering the Baptists, Methodists, Presbytarians, Anglicans etc). When we have the HOLY SPIRIT on Our side in interpretation of HIS Laws and Decrees, we can be assured that we are right. Take the example of the Pope. On matters of Faith and Morals, Ex Cathedra, From the Chair, the Pope is infallible. Even the Magesterium of the Church, (The College of Bishops) when they speak in UNION with the Holy Father, they are infallible on matters of Faith and Morals. The HOLY SPIRIT does this to protect us, HIS Church from the evil one. We can see this throughout History. We have had bad Popes, yes, Less than Holy ones, yes, However, whenever they spoke Ex Cathedra on a matter of Faith and Morals, they could say nothing wrong (However, I could count the number of Bad Popes on 2 hands, while I cannot say the same for the rest of the world leaders, so the Church has always had the best government). The HOLY SPIRIT wants to protect Us, HIS Flock from satan by ensuring that we are not taught astray. Any one of the Bad Popes in Church History could have easily made a statement that could have led us astray by human standards. Yet they couldn’t. As soon as they got in that Chair, for some reason, even the most corrupt Popes, could not speak anything contradictive to the Compendium of the Faith. Hence the reason that it is so critically important to keep Our Eyes fixed on Rome, especially whenever the Holy Father makes a statement “From the Chair”, “Ex Cathedra”. I do agree with You that other Religions did not/ do not have this Blessing that we do as a Church. Hence the reason that human rights abuses and moral abuses are far more rampant that anything the Church can be absued of. All the more reason to be VERY thankful to Our Blessed LORD for Giving us this Wonderful Church, A Church that I am so very proud and honored to be a Son of. I am not ashamed of my Church. She is the best Person in the world. She has heritage, beauty and above all, The ETERNAL TRUTH, JESUS CHRIST. Stay strong in the Faith my brothers and sisters!! Amen.

 

[Ion]

Amen.

Because, if You have no infallible supernatural being to hold Morality to, then you are lost. We cannot use Human consensus for right and wrong as we all know how that turns out (Hitler, Stalin etc), So there must be a GOD to hold us accountable to an objective law.

One of my favorite questions
“Is the fact that there is no objective truth, an objective truth?”

Alone, we can’t answer this…

 

[grannymh]

Morality is based on the fact that the human person is worthy of profound respect.
Therefore, both theists and non-theists can commit moral or immoral acts.

 

[Della]

Morality is based on the fact that the human person is worthy of profound respect.
Therefore, both theists and non-theists can commit moral or immoral acts.

Just playing the devil’s advocate, your first statement begs the question of why? The non-theist who believes we came about by natural selection and not the hand of God could argue that we have no more worth than any other species on the planet.

Morality is based in the worthiness of the human person, but only if humans can claim more worth than other life forms. And that leads us back to God and his creating us in his image.

 

[grannymh]

Morality is based on the fact that the human person is worthy of profound respect.
Therefore, both theists and non-theists can commit moral or immoral acts.

Just playing the devil’s advocate, your first statement begs the question of why? The non-theist who believes we came about by natural selection and not the hand of God could argue that we have no more worth than any other species on the planet.

Granted that a non-theist will have to work a tad harder than the theist when it comes to the fact that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

Probably the non-theist will use his cell phone to google human nature.
That act attests to the fact that we are not the same as other species. The material and physical accomplishments of the human person can lead to the conclusion that the human species is worthy of profound respect. Even true love of another person includes the concept that the person is worthy of profound respect. Rape, or an abusive marriage, is a denial that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

Morality is based in the worthiness of the human person, but only if humans can claim more worth than other life forms. And that leads us back to God and his creating us in his image.

Actually, in my humble observation, the human person being worthy of profound respect is an universal truth which does not depend on any claims. As you point out, this truth is based on the objective truth that God did create us in His image. Claiming that God does not exist does not make God disappear. Claiming that the human person is not worthy of profound respect (for example a serial killer) does not change the objective nature (soul and body) of a human.

 

[Della]

Granted that a non-theist will have to work a tad harder than the theist when it comes to the fact that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

Probably the non-theist will use his cell phone to google human nature.
That act attests to the fact that we are not the same as other species. The material and physical accomplishments of the human person can lead to the conclusion that the human species is worthy of profound respect. Even true love of another person includes the concept that the person is worthy of profound respect. Rape, or an abusive marriage, is a denial that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

In order for the non-theist to grasp the worthiness of the human person he has to agree to the basic premise that we are unique. He might agree that extreme abuse is bad, but perhaps not for the same reason. What is evident to the theist may not be evident to the non-theist.

Actually, in my humble observation, the human person being worthy of profound respect is an universal truth which does not depend on any claims. As you point out, this truth is based on the objective truth that God did create us in His image. Claiming that God does not exist does not make God disappear. Claiming that the human person is not worthy of profound respect (for example a serial killer) does not change the objective nature (soul and body) of a human.

Of course, you and I see this definition as profoundly true, but others who have no faith/belief in God may not. So, what does the non-theist base morality upon? That’s the question, as I see it.

 

[mymamamary]

In order for the non-theist to grasp the worthiness of the human person he has to agree to the basic premise that we are unique. He might agree that extreme abuse is bad, but perhaps not for the same reason. What is evident to the theist may not be evident to the non-theist.

**Of course, you and I see this definition as profoundly true, but others who have no faith/belief in God may not. So, what does the non-theist base morality upon? That’s the question, as I see it./**QUOTE]

Most of them will see morality as being relative or subjective. There is nothing subjective in this world they can place it upon, so they will say things such as “We have observed it is wrong”, however, even then, they fail to see that those “observations” come from Judeo Christian laws and influences. They haven’t created an ounce of morality that they can call their own. They have merely copied what they thought was in their best interests and whatever is a hindrance to them (Abortion, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, pornography) they removed from the Law. Simple as that. Selfish, self-seeking interests.

 

[grannymh]

In order for the non-theist to grasp the worthiness of the human person he has to agree to the basic premise that we are unique. He might agree that extreme abuse is bad, but perhaps not for the same reason. What is evident to the theist may not be evident to the non-theist.

Of course, you and I see this definition as profoundly true, but others who have no faith/belief in God may not. So, what does the non-theist base morality upon? That’s the question, as I see it.

The non-theist can in a moral manner toward other people because she or he considers the other person worthy of profound respect. Why she or he considers the other person worthy of profound respect is relevant but not essential. Believing in God is very important. Not believing in God does not automatically take away the non-theist’s ability to recognize worthiness.

The next question is – What would be considered a general definition of a moral action?

 

[grannymh]

Della;10305069:

In order for the non-theist to grasp the worthiness of the human person he has to agree to the basic premise that we are unique. He might agree that extreme abuse is bad, but perhaps not for the same reason. What is evident to the theist may not be evident to the non-theist.

Of course, you and I see this definition as profoundly true, but others who have no faith/belief in God may not. So, what does the non-theist base morality upon? That’s the question, as I see it./

QUOTE]

Most of them will see morality as being relative or subjective. There is nothing subjective in this world they can place it upon, so they will say things such as “We have observed it is wrong”, however, even then, they fail to see that those “observations” come from Judeo Christian laws and influences. They haven’t created an ounce of morality that they can call their own. They have merely copied what they thought was in their best interests and whatever is a hindrance to them (Abortion, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, pornography) they removed from the Law. Simple as that. Selfish, self-seeking interests.

Small comment. Abortion, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, pornography, and so on, all show a lack of profound respect for the human person, including the one in the womb.

 

[Della]

The non-theist can in a moral manner toward other people because she or he considers the other person worthy of profound respect. Why she or he considers the other person worthy of profound respect is relevant but not essential. Believing in God is very important. Not believing in God does not automatically take away the non-theist’s ability to recognize worthiness.

The next question is – What would be considered a general definition of a moral action?

The point is, as I see it, that the non-theist has no reason to even concede that each of us is worthy of profound respect. It’s why we have abortion on demand and euthansia is being practiced without any protest. So, it is essential to have a reason why each human being is to be considered worthy of life.

 

[edwest2]

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?

In such a culture, only anarchy would be permissible. In our current culture, there is a negative and bad slogan: “Good without God.” And it would include the whole spectrum of human responses. Starting at the less extreme end, good might be a few simple things, like not murdering, raping or stealing from people, and running to the extreme end, where murder is OK as a punishment or for revenge according to that individual’s personal idea of good or fair treatment. Rape may be OK in some cases. We actually do have disturbed people who say, “She was askin’ for it.”

And stealing? Hey, sometimes an old lady might refuse to sell you her marble rye (there was only one left at the bakery and she bought it only moments before you arrived), so you just grab it from her and run away. I mean you did offer to pay for it, she said no, and for you, that was totally unreasonable.

In life-threatening situations where a dike near a river needed to be shored up/reinforced, those with the strength would be temporarily organized to do the work by common agreement, and that’s it.

In summary, we could have people who live unassuming lives to those who plot and scheme because there is no God, this life is all there is, and the “unassuming” are fair game for con-artists, robbers and even vicious sorts of people who take pleasure and profit from victimizing others. The strong and smart will rule, while the less cunning and/or less intelligent will suffer.

I think the word I’m looking for is “barbaric.” And, of course, warfare would be common between competing, loose-knit individualists who have land and resources a group of other loose-knit individualists want.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Bradski]

The point is, as I see it, that the non-theist has no reason to even concede that each of us is worthy of profound respect. It’s why we have abortion on demand and euthansia is being practiced without any protest. So, it is essential to have a reason why each human being is to be considered worthy of life.

Taking the US as an example: abortion on demand, astronomically high homicide rates, sex outside marriage, divorce, the abuse of the young, jails filled to overflowing (with mostly Christians), drugs sold openly on the streets…the list of problems could go on and on. And yet America is one of the most overtly religious nations on earth.

If you look at other nations that are much less religious – any one of the Scandinavian countries for example, or even Australia, the problems are much, much smaller in comparison.

By whatever criteria one uses, the current state of society would seem to indicate that, overall, the more religious one is, the less moral one seems to be. So the inference that God is required for morality seems not to be based on any empirical evidence.

In fact, to a disinterested observer, the opposite would seem to be the case.

 

[Fomalhaut]

So the inference that God is required for morality seems not to be based on any empirical evidence.

I think everybody here agree on that. For me, the whole point is the philosophical justification of morality. In reality, people choose to follow or not to follow a set of moral rules, but what people are asking here is wether the very existence of these rules requires a divine reference. I tend to say no, as I try to base my morality on social stability and minimum harm. It provides a very liberal morality, and I have to include judeo-christian rules to fit in our society, originally built on those.