Morality without God?

[PetrusRomanus]

So do you do the right thing because you’re a Christian? Or do you do the right thing as well as being a Christian? If it’s the first, then please don’t lose your faith. If it’s the second, then you’re the same as me.

Belief in God is not required for morality to exist, only that God exists.

Despite the reasons for your morals or mine and why we uphold them, the fact that we’re able to is because of God’s very existence Who is morality itself.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

Morality isn’t a set of rules that have to be enforced. Morality guides how you should act. Whether you act in that way or not doesn’t depend on any authority.

This point is refuted by looking at how a child minds his parents after they discipline him for lying, stealing, or fighting.

It is also refuted by the fact that the police, the courts, and the prisons act as authorities who can correct misbehaving people.

All the authority of the law is derived from God’s authority. Anyone who perjures himself must do so under fear of imprisonment, having sworn on a Bible to tell the truth.

But if God is removed from the equation (God does breathe fire into the equation) you will find a society in which the authority of the law comes from a person, rather than a Deity. And that is when all hell can break loose.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Now you’re not sure if everyone else is acting the way they are because they feel it’s the right thing to do or not. Maybe they all are. But from now on, you can’t be sure.

So do you do the right thing because you’re a Christian? Or do you do the right thing as well as being a Christian? If it’s the first, then please don’t lose your faith. If it’s the second, then you’re the same as me.

You are confusing a person’s motive for doing the right thing with the ground for determining what the right thing is. That a person can determine the right for themselves does not automatically make their motives for doing so more laudible. On the other side, it may be more laudible for someone to defer to a higher authority than to abide by their own determination out of self-awareness or a sense that they could be in error. They may trust in someone else’s judgement because of that person’s more reliable or less invested judgement.

It is not a question of doing the right thing “because you’re a Christian,” nor even “as well as,” but, instead, being a Christian because it’s the right thing to be.

 

[Bradski]

Sure, rather like how it doesn’t matter if a politician really believes the things he’s saying. So long as they’re laudable things, there’s nothing to worry about.

Saying one thing and doing another it totally different. We’re talking about the latter. Walking the walk, not talking the talk.

For a materialist atheist, “the right thing” can only be “what I happen to like, right now”.

So you really think that I personally do whatever I like when I like? And that’s a serious question that does not require another question in reply, such as ‘Well, don’t you?’ I really would like to know if that is what you really feel and it’s not just a pat phrase that you might put out now and then without really meaning it.

Belief in God is not required for morality to exist, only that God exists.
Despite the reasons for your morals or mine and why we uphold them, the fact that we’re able to is because of God’s very existence Who is morality itself.

You need to tell Crude that. He thinks that materialist atheists believes that the right thing is just what feels good. It seems I’m moral anyway because of God, even if I don’t believe in Him.

It is also refuted by the fact that the police, the courts, and the prisons act as authorities who can correct misbehaving people.

We’re talking morality. And ‘the police, the courts, and the prisons’ have no interest in correcting people who behave immorally. Unless they are, at the same time, acting illegally.

Let’s keep the difference clear here.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski
**
We’re talking morality. And ‘the police, the courts, and the prisons’ have no interest in correcting people who behave immorally. Unless they are, at the same time, acting illegally.**

Name me any law that is not based on a principle of morality (or immorality).

 

[Crude]

Saying one thing and doing another it totally different. We’re talking about the latter. Walking the walk, not talking the talk.

And what’s the walk? You’re not understanding the point.

So you really think that I personally do whatever I like when I like? And that’s a serious question that does not require another question in reply, such as ‘Well, don’t you?’ I really would like to know if that is what you really feel and it’s not just a pat phrase that you might put out now and then without really meaning it.

I’m saying that when you’re a materialist atheist, you’ve automatically ruled out objective morality. The only standards that exist are subjective standards, yours or someone else’s. So when you say “I do good as an atheist!”, we have to cash out what that means.

Is it a reference to objective right and wrong, say some kind of platonic Good? Well, if so, you wouldn’t be a materialist - so that’s out.

Command of God, the immutable Good Itself? Again, out for obvious reasons.

So what’s left? Cultural approval, which is ultimately collective subjective preferences. Personal approval, which is exactly what I said it is. “X is good” means “I prefer X”. “I do good” means “I do what I prefer”.

Now, it’s entirely possible that you prefer to give food to homeless people. Or maybe not. Maybe you like to kill them. On materialist atheism, there’s really no objective value difference between the two. And that’s not simply my conclusion - it’s backed by a number of atheists. See Alex Rosenberg.

You need to tell Crude that. He thinks that materialist atheists believes that the right thing is just what feels good. It seems I’m moral anyway because of God, even if I don’t believe in Him.

Oh, really? So you’re against abortion, right? Against gay marriage? Against pornography? Premarital sex? You reject drug use, of course. I mean, that’s what I take to be moral behavior. And you say you’re a moral person, so surely you don’t condone that.

Or, wait. Do you mean something different by morality here? You know… maybe you happen to think abortions are entirely moral, or at least it’s morally licit to procure and support them. Maybe you think everything I mentioned is morally A-OK. And what determines their being good or evil?

Back to what I said.

And no, I didn’t say “you do whatever feels good” in the necessarily shallow sense. Rather, “what feels good” can mean all kinds of things, from charity to serial killing. It’s an unhinged standard, and can mean anything. Which is exactly why it means nothing at all.

When you embrace both materialism and atheism, ‘morality’ talk is meaningless except in pretty shallow senses.

 

[Publisher]

Having religious beliefs in no way insures morality…history teaches us that the most heinous crimes against humanity was based on religious views.

 

[PRmerger]

Having religious beliefs in no way insures morality…

True, this.

However, without an Objective Morality one cannot stop another person from expressing his form of morality, even if it’s evil.

That’s a big problem.

The only thing that allows evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, as the saying goes.

 

[Aloysium]

Having religious beliefs in no way insures morality…history teaches us that the most heinous crimes against humanity was based on religious views.

can you remind me, please

 

[Crude]

Having religious beliefs in no way insures morality…history teaches us that the most heinous crimes against humanity was based on religious views.

History does no such thing. History teaches us that people love to BS about history, or repeat popular maxims that aren’t true.

The most heinous crimes against humanity have been motivated by secular desires. Good old fashioned power, money, political ideology, and more. In fact, secular desires have often resulted in religion being co-opted for those ends.

 

[Bradski]

Name me any law that is not based on a principle of morality (or immorality).

You’re looking at this from the wrong direction, Charles. I am emphasising the fact that not everything that someone may class as immoral is therefore illegal. Like adultery or masturbation or contraception.

In any case, the rule of law dictates that ignorance of the law is no excuse. But you can’t be acting immorally if you act in good faith.

And there are some laws that permit you to do something on one day, but not another. It would be nonsense to suggest that you are acting morally a minute before midnight and immorally 2 minutes later (unless you want to suggest that breaking the law is, in itself, immoral in which case you don’t have an argument that can be sensibly addressed).

There are things that are illegal in some states and not in others. If I’m acting morally where I am right now, am I acting immorally simply becuase I cross the street?

And a law that’s not based on morality? It’s illegal not to wear a seatbelt. Are you going to tell me it’s immoral not to? It’s illegal to walk down the street carrying a gun. Am I acting immorally to do so? Let me know…

 

[Hamlet123]

Having religious beliefs in no way insures morality…history teaches us that the most heinous crimes against humanity was based on religious views.

Examples please

 

[Linux]

Examples please

Are you serious. Looool. I am surprised. Isn’t history rife we people using religious scripture to justify what most religious people know today to be wrong. Or do you think burning somebody alive at the stake is a merciful act?

 

[Hamlet123]

Are you serious. Looool. I am surprised. Isn’t history rife we people using religious scripture to justify what most religious people know today to be wrong. Or do you think burning somebody alive at the stake is a merciful act?

So how many people were burned at the stake by the Catholic Chruch?
No doubt one is too many; but compared to any other state, what is the number?
Examples please and how many died at the stake in the name of Catholicism?
Examples and numbers please?

 

[Linux]

So how many people were burned at the stake by the Catholic Chruch?
No doubt one is too many; but compared to any other state, what is the number?
Examples please and how many died at the stake in the name of Catholicism?
Examples and numbers please?

I spoke of religion in general, not specifically Catholics. What does numbers matter anyway? 1 is enough to justify the claim that religion has been used in the service of evil and can be used in the service of evil. I don’t think Catholics are doing themselves any favours by trying to pretty-up history.

 

[Hamlet123]

I spoke of religion in general, not specifically Catholics.

Well, 1. This is a Catholic sight, 2. I suggest that you imply that Catholics being included as a reliogen contributed mightily to immoral acts; nothing could be futther from the truth 3. One of the evidences that Catholicism is THE one true church is the so very low incidends of injustice from Mother Church … yes there are incidents (as Jesus and Paul) told us there would be.

[/quote]

Or could it be that historians have dirtied-up history. If you will investigate the middle ages you will see that the Church produced a golden age, an age of charity undone by no other time in history - A most moral club: the Catholic Church
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[Linux]

Or could it be that historians have dirtied-up history. If you will investigate the middle ages you will see that the Church produced a golden age, an age of charity undone by no other time in history - A most moral club: the Catholic Church

I am not going to deny that the Catholic church has done good in the world when it operates within the correct function of its faith. But i don’t really have much reason to doubt that evil, although perhaps relatively less than other cultures, has been done in its name. Neither do i see that such evil has any relevance to assessing the truthfulness of Catholic theology. Thus i am confused when you say that good works are evidence that the Catholic faith is true. Good works or bad works have nothing to do with it.

 

[Hamlet123]

I am not going to deny that the Catholic church has done good in the world when it operates within the correct function of its faith. But i don’t really have much reason to doubt that evil, although perhaps relatively less than other cultures, has been done in its name. Neither do i see that such evil has any relevance to assessing the truthfulness of Catholic theology. Thus i am confused when you say that good works are evidence that the Catholic faith is true. Good works or bad works have nothing to do with it.

Well, we are getting off-topic; albeit, one of my favorite. Ourt of respect to the others on this sight, why don’t you send me a personal message. I will send you liturature that prooves beyond a doubt that the Catholic Church wasn’t a bit better it was an Everest in a desert. It is amazing what a bastian of morality it was and is. Elizabeth did a great job of beginning the lies and selling them.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am not going to deny that the Catholic church has done good in the world when it operates within the correct function of its faith. But i don’t really have much reason to doubt that evil, although perhaps relatively less than other cultures, has been done in its name. Neither do i see that such evil has any relevance to assessing the truthfulness of Catholic theology. Thus i am confused when you say that good works are evidence that the Catholic faith is true. Good works or bad works have nothing to do with it.

I have never understood this position that you seem to be defending.

Catholic teaching is not merely theological in nature, but also moral. To say that good or bad works have nothing to do with the truthfulness of Catholic teaching simply is an indefensible position.

The problem is with confusing the teaching with the actions of those who claim to be Catholic but are in fact acting otherwise. While true that the actions of these people are not to be taken as evidence of the truth of Catholic moral teaching, it is still very clear that to find examples of individuals whose actions follow Catholic teaching very closely ought to be used as evidence for the practical implications of Catholic moral teaching.

If Individual C is acting fully in accord with Catholic teaching, whether or not they actually claim to be Catholic, then the “results” of their actions should be taken as evidence for the validity of Catholic ethics.

On the other hand, if Individual A, while claiming to be Catholic, acts in a manner inconsistent with Catholic moral teaching, then their actions should not count against the validity of Catholic moral teaching, regardless of their claim be Catholic.

In other words, it is not the claim of the individual regarding what they see as their status vis a vis the Church, but what ought to be taken seriously is whether their actions are, in fact, consistent with the teachings of the Church.

You will know the tree by its fruit, not by the label placed upon it. Whether or not that label has been self issued or put there by someone else, is entirely irrelevant.

The question is whether Catholic moral teaching results in good fruit. The only way to answer that is to find examples of those individuals who consistently live by Catholic moral teaching. I would suggest the saints of the Church are the only ones by which to accurately assess that question because even the Church would stand by her recommendation of these individuals.

 

[D_Martin]

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?

Do you mean religion as a practice of physical activity in acts of worship and or habit? Or do you mean religion as a system of belief? And truthfully does a system of belief have to be a religion to be a system of belief?

In the perspective of Ten Commandments for instance, is the Ten Commandments for all whether they are aware of them or not? Or is the Ten Commandments an agreement that is of God towards His people?

Are morals based on a set of rules whether they are known or not? Or are morals based on agreement, that both parties are aware of?