Morality without God?

[Charlemagne_II]

PRmerger

“If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray. All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.” (1 John 5:16-17).

Thus St. John asserts the Catholic teaching of the distinction between mortal sin (deadly) and venial sin (not deadly). The lie that stops an abortion or a nuclear terrorist is a sin, but surely it is a venial sin, and therefore not deadly. This is what we mean by guidance from Scripture and the Church and the Catechism rulebook…

 

[aprilfloyd]

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?

My opinion is that the questions are confusing elements of religion and morality. Whilst religions can espouse their ow moralities. As your self a simple question do you need to believe in one of the gods to do a good deed. Or is that something that is intrinsically within you and innate to humans and their development.

Many religions have questionable moralities - Female Genital Mutilation, Circumcision, Homophobia - there is a long list.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

april
**
As your self a simple question do you need to believe in one of the gods to do a good deed.**

Ask yourself a simple question. How do you know there is no God?

It’s not that an atheist cannot do a good deed. My own experience is that I was a better person when I believed in God than when I did not. I had the Scriptures and the Church in front of me to teach and guide me to be a better person. What does the unbeliever have that teaches him and encourages him to be a better person?

And if there is a God, how good can you be when you spit in God’s face by denying His existence?

 

[Aloysium]

april

It’s not that an atheist cannot do a good deed.

An atheist can do good deeds because we exist in a moral universe of which God is the Ground and the source of all goodness, justice and reason.

 

[aprilfloyd]

april
**
As your self a simple question do you need to believe in one of the gods to do a good deed.**

Ask yourself a simple question. How do you know there is no God?

It’s not that an atheist cannot do a good deed. My own experience is that I was a better person when I believed in God than when I did not. I had the Scriptures and the Church in front of me to teach and guide me to be a better person. What does the unbeliever have that teaches him and encourages him to be a better person?

And if there is a God, how good can you be when you spit in God’s face by denying His existence?

As far as I am aware the position on the existence of god would be something like -

We cannot prove or disprove that any of the gods referenced by man exists or does not exist.

I don’t know what you mean by ‘unbeliever’ as arguably everyone on the planet is an ‘unbeliever’ of at least one religion or god.

I would suggest that it is better to do a good deed because it’s the right thing to do. It is very discouraging to believe that people need to be taught this or encouraged to do this. Or that it is only done to appease a retributive God.

I am not denying god’s existence - I think it is established that no one can. I am looking to find out if He does exist and which one.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

april
**
I would suggest that it is better to do a good deed because it’s the right thing to do. It is very discouraging to believe that people need to be taught this or encouraged to do this. Or that it is only done to appease a retributive God.**

Perhaps here we are narrowing the scope of the discussion too much.

Morality not only concerns doing good deeds, but also doing bad deeds. We have all done bad deeds. The unbeliever has not God to ask forgiveness. Forgiveness of sins is a great impulse to be better. No one feels much better than a person who has just left the confessional.

But our bad deeds cannot be forgiven if we deny there is a God to forgive them and therefore do not seek forgiveness.

**I am not denying god’s existence - I think it is established that no one can. I am looking to find out if He does exist and which one. **

We have been over this ground before. Finding God is an adventure that some gladly accept and that others refuse to accept. First you have to pick a God, even if you are not certain of the one you have picked. I see you want proof. But I’m afraid the proof you want is up close and personal. It doesn’t work that way. First you have to surrender your doubts and begin to believe. God’s grace will very likely lead you from god to god until you find the true God.

You seem to have a problem with the Christian God, but that puzzles me because you are spending altogether too much time at Catholic Answers to be really convinced that Christ is not the one.

Anyway, it would be a good idea to accept the generic God, and hope he leads you with an open mind to accept Christ as the one who really loves you and is your Lord and Savior.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I would suggest that it is better to do a good deed because it’s the right thing to do. It is very discouraging to believe that people need to be taught this or encouraged to do this. Or that it is only done to appease a retributive God.

It is quite simple minded of you to think that believers, generally, do what they do to “appease” a retributive God. Almost all believers that I encounter act out of love for what they believe to be the Origin of meaning and truth. It is true, however, that people need to be taught and encouraged to act morally because, as a matter of fact, many find some challenge in doing so.

I would, further, submit that the only reason anyone has to think any good deed could be the “right” thing to do is because they are capable of moral reasoning, i.e., the person is a moral being. Absent God to provide a moral ground for any living being to be capable of thinking morally to determine the difference between “right thing” and “wrong thing,” we have no reason to think an amoral, material ground of existence could provide anything like justification for moral reasoning.

In other words, you cannot reason from a strictly material causal order with no purpose or capable of qualitative filter to, therefore, this action is right or wrong. The material universe, sans God, does not sanction good or bad results. Things just “happen” as causally determined. Atheism provides no rational grounds for moral thinking precisely because it must begin from a material, purposeless amoral ground towards a conclusion for anything about anything. There are no grounds for making moral conclusions if a strictly materialistic causal order is presumed.

I am not denying god’s existence - I think it is established that no one can. I am looking to find out if He does exist and which one.

It has, perhaps, been established that physical or material evidence cannot provide absolute “proof” for the existence of any immaterial existent, but that is a far cry from claiming that no logical proof exists. Nor does it disprove that sufficient physical evidence does exist to warrant a reasonable belief in a particular God.

Belief in the existence of Zeus may find no evidentiary support on the top of Mt. Olympus, but that does not mean the acceptance via logical conclusion of an uncaused Cause or Cosmological Orderer is irrational and unwarranted. Reasonable belief does not require anything like absolute proof. If it did, we would be paralyzed by our own incapacity to think or believe anything at all.

Try subjecting your other cherished beliefs to the same standard of doubt that you do to belief in God before you attempt to criticize others about their lack of due diligence.

 

[Bradski]

i do not see how there could be a “full range of moral positions” there is one moral position; in doing God’s will, it is expressed in different ways reflecting our personal uniqueness

Hey, hang on a minute here. Is the biggest get-out-of-jail card yet? Are you suggesting that if different believers have different positions in regard to a moral question, then they are just expressing their ‘personal uniqueness’ and that equates to ‘just one moral position’?

Firstly, I have always argued that atheists can be moral (that is, they have morality without God).

Well, that appears to be an answer to the question in the OP .

As to “the full range of moral positions”, that is a wrong distillation of Catholic moral theology, as it applies to stewardship of God’s creation. A limited range of moral positions is permissible.
Torture of animals = bad, under Catholic morality.
Giving a lonely widower a pet for companionship = good, under Catholic morality
Eating animals = permissible under Catholic morality.

Again, you are giving very simplistic examples with which everyone would agree. But it’s easy to muddy the water a little to give pause for thought. It’s OK to eat animals but how about farming dogs? They taste quite nice actually. OK to kill tuna but not whales? Or maybe whales are good to go but a side order of dolphin? If we get to the point where gorillas are no longer endangered, could we eat them?

You’ll get different answers to all sorts of moral questions and none of the problems you face will be specifically covered by anything your church teaches you. So you have to make your mind up yourself. You have to make moral decisions yourself. There is no guidance available.

Unless…you want to say that your moral decisions are based on your God-given conscience. But that God given conscience seems to give different answers to different people. So you may want to suggest that those different positions are down to free will. But if it’s free will and there is no guidance, how do you determine who is right?

Every man knows there are ‘basic moral truths’ because every man has been endowed with a moral nature by the moral Being that created every man to be a morally responsible agent. A theist has no problem explaining whence the moral nature of human beings derives.

So you make moral decisions because you have been given a moral nature by God. But someone who holds a different view has also been given a moral nature by God.

As you said earlier: ‘The rightness or wrongness or neutrality of an act is so absolutely and does not change’.

So how do we know that you are right and the other guy is wrong if there is no specific guidance on the matter?

The atheist on the other hand, must explain why human beings are moral…

Peter, I think that what you might have said is that you are very well aware of the reasons but you don’t agree with them.

So how do you interpret the ethical treatment of animals? And why would your answer be different to, say, PR’s?

Could you be more specific. In what way does Catholic morality not address the ethical treatment of animals?

See above.

 

[aprilfloyd]

You seem to have a problem with the Christian God, but that puzzles me because you are spending altogether too much time at Catholic Answers to be really convinced that Christ is not the one.

I have an open mind, I am on quite a few forums of other faiths too. I don’t have a problem per se with the Christian God, but if I am biased it is only because I was raised Catholic and not another faith

 

[PRmerger]

Again, you are giving very simplistic examples with which everyone would agree. But it’s easy to muddy the water a little to give pause for thought.

Not sure why you think giving “pause for thought” is a bad thing, in contrast to “simplistic examples”?

It’s OK to eat animals but how about farming dogs? They taste quite nice actually.

Farming dogs is moral as long as it’s done without torturing them. That’s where the Catholic principle of good stewardship influences dog farmers.

OK to kill tuna but not whales?

If you’re killing tuna and whales for food, and doing so without harming the environment, then it’s perfectly within realm of good Catholic stewardship.

Or maybe whales are good to go but a side order of dolphin? If we get to the point where gorillas are no longer endangered, could we eat them?

Of course. There is nothing objectionable at all morally with eating any of those animals.

None of them have been created in the image and likeness of God.

I feel as if you feel these are pressing and difficult moral issues, but they are, in fact, some of the easiest questions I’ve answered here on this forum.

You’ll get different answers to all sorts of moral questions and none of the problems you face will be specifically covered by anything your church teaches you. So you have to make your mind up yourself. You have to make moral decisions yourself.

I am curious about this.

Catholics on this forum: do you have other thoughts about Bradski’s apparent moral dilemmas of the animal kind?

There is no guidance available.

Incorrect.

The Church has given us guidance indeed.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

So how do we know that you are right and the other guy is wrong if there is no specific guidance on the matter?

In all matters that matter the Church gives sufficient guidance to those in the dark.

The examples you throw out … such as eating dog … are really silly.

 

[aprilfloyd]

It is quite simple minded of you to think that believers, generally, do what they do to “appease” a retributive God. Almost all believers that I encounter act out of love for what they believe to be the Origin of meaning and truth. It is true, however, that people need to be taught and encouraged to act morally because, as a matter of fact, many find some challenge in doing so.

Good point. But I don’t agree. Reading other posts on here - there are many ‘catholics’ who have an old testament view of god. They appear more fire and brimstone than love in their postings

I would, further, submit that the only reason anyone has to think any good deed could be the “right” thing to do is because they are capable of moral reasoning, i.e., the person is a moral being. Absent God to provide a moral ground for any living being to be capable of thinking morally to determine the difference between “right thing” and “wrong thing,” we have no reason to think an amoral, material ground of existence could provide anything like justification for moral reasoning.

In other words, you cannot reason from a strictly material causal order with no purpose or capable of qualitative filter to, therefore, this action is right or wrong. The material universe, sans God, does not sanction good or bad results. Things just “happen” as causally determined. Atheism provides no rational grounds for moral thinking precisely because it must begin from a material, purposeless amoral ground towards a conclusion for anything about anything. There are no grounds for making moral conclusions if a strictly materialistic causal order is presumed.

Not sure of your point here. If I have understood. I see no reason why we need a particular religion or god to have morals. I also don’t follow your conclusions about atheism either - you speak as though you think atheism is another religion or a collective of people. It is like your saying ‘if there is no Santa, therefore no morals’.
Someone who describes themselves as an atheist can be moral or make moral judgements.
It is interesting the idea that an unprovable God provides a moral framework rather than rational man with his ability for moral reasoning.

It has, perhaps, been established that physical or material evidence cannot provide absolute “proof” for the existence of any immaterial existent, but that is a far cry from claiming that no logical proof exists. Nor does it disprove that sufficient physical evidence does exist to warrant a reasonable belief in a particular God.

I don’t think that has been established. Can you give me an example of the logical proof you refer to. I think a reasonable belief is too low a standard.

Try subjecting your other cherished beliefs to the same standard of doubt that you do to belief in God before you attempt to criticize others about their lack of due diligence.

I don’t have cherished beliefs. I do think it is important though to steal a line made popular Carl Sagan that ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

april
**
I don’t have cherished beliefs. I do think it is important though to steal a line made popular Carl Sagan that ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’.**

Genesis, 1000 B.C. : In the beginning God said: “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

 

[Aloysium]

I don’t have cherished beliefs. I do think it is important though to steal a line made popular Carl Sagan that ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’

i am not sure why other ppl don’t feel this way, but the fact that i actually exist, this is so beyond extraordinary, i don’t need any other evidence for God (i did not create myself).

Scripture and Church teachings definitely fill out the picture of what It is all about.

 

[aprilfloyd]

april
**
I don’t have cherished beliefs. I do think it is important though to steal a line made popular Carl Sagan that ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’.**

Genesis, 1000 B.C. : In the beginning God said: “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

Which quote do you subscribe too?

 

[aprilfloyd]

i am not sure why other ppl don’t feel this way, but the fact that i actually exist, this is so beyond extraordinary, i don’t need any other evidence for God (i did not create myself).

Scripture and Church teachings definitely fill out the picture of what It is all about.

Hi Aloysium,

Which of all the gods through the ages does your existence prove?

 

[Hamlet123]

april
**
I don’t have cherished beliefs. I do think it is important though to steal a line made popular Carl Sagan that ‘extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence’.**

Genesis, 1000 B.C. : In the beginning God said: “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out:

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

:clapping:

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Genesis, 1000 B.C. : In the beginning God said: “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang,…].”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out:

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason,…]

You’ve posted those set of quotes a few times before (like here, here, and here). But I’ve never been sure what the message is that you are communicating with them. Would you mind spelling it out?

 

[PRmerger]

You’ve posted those set of quotes a few times before (like here, here, and here). But I’ve never been sure what the message is that you are communicating with them. Would you mind spelling it out?

Those quotes segue quite nicely with what Genesis proclaims is the point.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Thinking

**You’ve posted those set of quotes a few times before (like here, here, and here). But I’ve never been sure what the message is that you are communicating with them. Would you mind spelling it out? **

I believe the quotes speak for themselves. But if they don’t, it’s because you’re not listening.

A thing that is worth saying once is worth saying three times or as long as it takes until it sinks in.