Morality without God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fomalhaut said:
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.
Click to expand...
Thats just the problem though. Society is UNstable. You cannot find social stability in society. Look at the news in europe, the EU is terrified that hardcore neo nazis are once again on the rise, JUST 70 years after Hitler. Society doesn’t learn its lessons, nor does it study history. Also, for Judeo-Christian Morality, modern society built on our principles, not vice versa. Conventional modern morality as the lawbooks of today know it, however ****** they can be at times, descended from Judeo-Christian morality. Objective rules do require an unchanging and objective BEING to ensure those rules and laws are met. Not society. Society cannot do something of an objective nature as popular influence and human nature is ever changing. One day, we thinking killing is wrong, the next, its ok. It could happen. Pre-nazi Germany didn’t think it could happen. No country or social order (Except the Church) is immune to dangerous ideologies PRECISLEY because of the fact that human opinion is ever shifting. Human nature can fall prey to the idea that we need to be completley relative and subjective in order to progess. My question is, what is the logic behind throwing conventional morality out the window and progressing towards a final goal, if there is no final goal, namely GOD. I am not a hardcore objectivist, although I do believe that there are moral and spiritual absolutes. Naturally, due to our human weakness, there is some subjective leeway, particularly on issues of culpability, however that does not affect the fact that there is a moral absolute.
 
grannymh said:
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.
Click to expand...
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Bradski said:
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.
Click to expand...
While I have always argued here that I believe atheists can be quite moral without any acknowledged belief in God, and that there are some atheists that I would much rather have my back than some Christians…

I believe the above argument is specious.

Non-religious countries have less crime but not necessarily less immoral people.

They have less crime because they call less things illegal. 🤷
 
PRmerger said:
Non-religious countries have less crime but not necessarily less immoral people.

They have less crime because they call less things illegal. 🤷
Click to expand...
Are you seriously thinking that ? What are you thinking about exactly ? Murder ? Armed robbery ?
 
Fomalhaut said:
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…
Click to expand...
That’s a very good point. It seems ridiculous to suggest that someone who is not a theist doesn’t have a set of ground rules within which he or she lives. Some of those rules some theists claim as their own, although they seem pretty universal to me, whether you believe in a deity or not. I don’t think that ‘Do not steal’ and ‘Do not kill’ came as much of a surprise to anyone when Jesus started to preach.

Christian morality is solidly based on the Golden Rule which was accepted as a reasonable maxim centuries before Christianity came onto the scene. And that’s just what we know from written records. There’s no reason to believe that it didn’t hold fast from the very beginning of civilisation. In fact, there’s a very good case to make that it was a requirement for civilisation itself.

When you tell a child not to do something, it always helps if there’s a specific reason for it, rather than saying – ‘just because I say so’. Don’t run across the road – because you might get hit by a car. Don’t play with matches – because you might get burnt. And if you explain the reasons behind Christian morality (with the exception of some rather odd rules, such as ‘don’t touch yourself down there!), then they are reasons that are universal, not specific to Christianity or any other religion.

So the answer to the question ‘where does an atheist get his morality?’ is…the same place Christians got theirs. They’re the same.
Fomalhaut said:
…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.
Click to expand...
If Christianity didn’t exist, then we’d follow the same morality as we do today. Because it’s based on the very ground rules that enabled us to become civilised.
 
I think the agnostics and atheists make a good point and are right to point to countries such as Sweden. A secular society can function to a high degree. It can be prosperous. From those examples, however, we can also conclude that such societies have a harder time expanding, promoting moral courage, and performing sacrificial kind of morality.

Expanding: These societies don’t expand their population or territory. I doubt they would have existed at all if a population group started out as atheists.

Promoting moral courage: Swedes don’t like to fight evil, either home or abroad. Witness their cooperation with Hitler.

Sacrificial kinds of morality. I don’t think most Swedes are good at limiting their passions to maintain a nuclear family, for example. Abortion, etc.

Most people who feel free of religious morality will not kill or rape. They will tend to, more than religious societies, probably, do things that make for a comfortable, fun-filled life.

Remember, history isn’t over.
 
Bradski said:
That’s a very good point. It seems ridiculous to suggest that someone who is not a theist doesn’t have a set of ground rules within which he or she lives. Some of those rules some theists claim as their own, although they seem pretty universal to me, whether you believe in a deity or not. I don’t think that ‘Do not steal’ and ‘Do not kill’ came as much of a surprise to anyone when Jesus started to preach.

Christian morality is solidly based on the Golden Rule which was accepted as a reasonable maxim centuries before Christianity came onto the scene. And that’s just what we know from written records. There’s no reason to believe that it didn’t hold fast from the very beginning of civilisation. In fact, there’s a very good case to make that it was a requirement for civilisation itself.

When you tell a child not to do something, it always helps if there’s a specific reason for it, rather than saying – ‘just because I say so’. Don’t run across the road – because you might get hit by a car. Don’t play with matches – because you might get burnt. And if you explain the reasons behind Christian morality (with the exception of some rather odd rules, such as ‘don’t touch yourself down there!), then they are reasons that are universal, not specific to Christianity or any other religion.

So the answer to the question ‘where does an atheist get his morality?’ is…the same place Christians got theirs. They’re the same.

If Christianity didn’t exist, then we’d follow the same morality as we do today. Because it’s based on the very ground rules that enabled us to become civilised.
Click to expand...
The Golden Rule is the Natural Moral Law written on the heart of man by GOD. So, yes in effect, it did come before any religion, because GOD wrote it on our hearts, on all hearts, and will write it on all hearts till the end of time. Hence the reason that a stockbroker in New York would agree with the primitve tribal man in Africa on the fact that killing for no good reason is wrong. Affirming what is GODS. 👍
 
Della said:
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.
Click to expand...
I would like to deliberately shift the focus at the same time agreeing with you about the particulars of abortion and euthanasia.

My question is – What about the non-theist in our own family? What about the non-theist who is a good friend?
 
Bradski said:
So the answer to the question ‘where does an atheist get his morality?’ is…the same place Christians got theirs. They’re the same.
Click to expand...
'zactly.

That’s the Christian’s point. You get your morality from God, even if you don’t acknowledge it.

If you don’t have a source that’s outside of you for your morality then you cannot tell another person: “What you are doing is wrong. It’s not me who says it. It’s [fill in the blank with your source of absolute morality].”

What you are resigned to say is: “I believe [A] is wrong, but if you don’t believe it’s wrong, well, then, go ahead and continue to do [A], because my source of morality must be different than yours.”

Which, of course, leaves room for evil to triumph.
 
grannymh said:
I would like to deliberately shift the focus at the same time agreeing with you about the particulars of abortion and euthanasia.

My question is – What about the non-theist in our own family? What about the non-theist who is a good friend?
Click to expand...
Individual non-theist persons may be good citizens and may even commit no grave sins, but our society as a whole has been influenced by two general philosphical positions. 1) God doesn’t care what we do or 2) there is no God to bother about. These attitudes have led to broken families, abortion on demand, euthansia, and other disorders and sins.
 
PRmerger said:
No, of course I’m not thinking about murder and armed robbery.

I am thinking more in the lines of (but not limited to) sexual sins:
Click to expand...
Then we agree, there is more criminal violence in the US, even though it is more religious.
PRmerger said:
'zactly.

That’s the Christian’s point. You get your morality from God, even if you don’t acknowledge it.

If you don’t have a source that’s outside of you for your morality then you cannot tell another person: “What you are doing is wrong. It’s not me who says it. It’s [fill in the blank with your source of absolute morality].”

What you are resigned to say is: “I believe [A] is wrong, but if you don’t believe it’s wrong, well, then, go ahead and continue to do [A], because my source of morality must be different than yours.”

Which, of course, leaves room for evil to triumph.
Click to expand...
No, what you are resigned to say is: “what you do is against the law, I’m going to call the police”. Your absolute reference is the social consensus.If you thinnk something is wrong, but it is not in the law, then, it’s true that you can’t do anything. But in the end, if you have to tell someone what he’s doing is wrong, either he share your divine reference, choose to act that way anyway, and reminding him is useless, either he doesn’t share it, and your reference has no power over him.
 
Bradski
**
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. **

O.K. here we go again.

The most evil and repressive regimes of the 20th century were led by men who opposed religion.

Hitler
“The religions are all alike, no matter what they call themselves. They have no future – certainly none for the Germans. Fascism, if it likes, may come to terms with the Church. So shall I. Why not? That will not prevent me from tearing up Christianity root and branch and annihilating it in Germany.”

Stalin
“We guarantee the right of every citizen to combat by argument, propaganda, and agitation all religion. The Communist Party cannot be neutral toward religion. It stands for science, and all religion is opposed to science.”

Mao
“Religion is poison.”
 
There are many factors in crime, including demographics, etc. Some people may be less prone towards crime in general and people may just be showing that a society can be secular and not fall apart immediately. I think the best way to think about this is the effect that religion would have.

Do people here think that Swedes or Danes would commit more crime if 50% of them went to church? Did Swedes commit more crime in the past? Are religious Swedes now more violent?

What about in the US? Where there’s a lot of crime, say, Chicago, are most of the perpetrators attending church services regularly?
 
John Savage

What about in the US? Where there’s a lot of crime, say, Chicago, are most of the perpetrators attending church services regularly?

Doubtful. And if you look into most prisons, you’ll find a vast majority of prisoners do not take advantage of chaplain services. I know this for a fact, having served in the prison ministry.
 
Fomalhaut said:
Then we agree, there is more criminal violence in the US, even though it is more religious.
Click to expand...
And would we agree that there is more immorality, depravity and despondency in non-religious societies?
No, what you are resigned to say is: “what you do is against the law, I’m going to call the police”. Your absolute reference is the social consensus.If you thinnk something is wrong, but it is not in the law, then, it’s true that you can’t do anything. But in the end, if you have to tell someone what he’s doing is wrong, either he share your divine reference, choose to act that way anyway, and reminding him is useless, either he doesn’t share it, and your reference has no power over him.
Click to expand...
You are mixing your pronouns here and confusing me here. By “you” are you talking about “the non-theist”? Or are you talking to me, personally?

At any rate, how does that work for adultery, Formalhaut? Would you agree that there is no law against that?

And what about Nazi Germany? How would your paradigm work there?
 
PRmerger said:
'zactly.

That’s the Christian’s point. You get your morality from God, even if you don’t acknowledge it.

If you don’t have a source that’s outside of you for your morality then you cannot tell another person: “What you are doing is wrong. It’s not me who says it. It’s [fill in the blank with your source of absolute morality].”

What you are resigned to say is: “I believe [A] is wrong, but if you don’t believe it’s wrong, well, then, go ahead and continue to do [A], because my source of morality must be different than yours.”

Which, of course, leaves room for evil to triumph.
Click to expand...
I think you’re right. Once non-religious societies remove God from the picture, they eliminate the basis for morality that they can find only in God’s nature. In non-religious societies people basically base right and wrong behavior on either what their personal convictions are at that particular time period or what their society dictates to them. And because people and societies never remain the same, non-religious societies by their nature can never offer up morals of any kind without eventually contradicting themselves, since they can never say with any certainty that something is always right or always wrong for everyone.
 
shoe said:
In non-religious societies people basically base right and wrong behavior on either what their personal convictions are at that particular time period or what their society dictates to them.
Click to expand...
Yep. And who is “society” except “people like me”? And why should other people have any authority over me to dictate what’s right and wrong?
 
Very few people, whether religious or not religious, commit violent crime. Violent crime in the US correlates more to race and family situation (fatherless) than to religion. I think attending Christian services would reduce violent crime, everything else being equal.
 
John_Savage said:
Very few people, whether religious or not religious, commit violent crime. Violent crime in the US correlates more to race and family situation (fatherless) than to religion. I think attending Christian services would reduce violent crime, everything else being equal.
Click to expand...
Do you have a source for this?

Best,
Ed
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top