Morality without God?

[JamesATyler]

Isn’t Paul saying here that it possible to follow the law without having the law? That people will perish because of their sins whether they have it or not?

**Romans Chapter 2

11

There is no partiality with God.

12

All who sin outside the law will also perish without reference to it, and all who sin under the law will be judged in accordance with it.

13

For it is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified.

14

For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law.

15

They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them

16

on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people’s hidden works through Christ Jesus.
**

 

[PRmerger]

Isn’t Paul saying here that it possible to follow the law without having the law?

Certainly.

But the law is written in our hearts, is it not?

 

[PRmerger]

Okay. Sorry if I am derailing the conversation. I just think that we need to account for objective morals (of course atheists can have subjective morals) on theism before we go telling off the atheists for having no standard.

We do account for objective morals, ccmnxc. The answer is they come from God.

 

[ccmnxc]

We do account for objective morals, ccmnxc. The answer is they come from God.

So in reference to the Euthyphro Dilemma, are morals good because God says so (are subjective in relation to Him), or does God command them because they are good (they transcend God)?

 

[JamesATyler]

Certainly.

But the law is written in our hearts, is it not?

It can be written in the heart. An atheist can have the laws written in his heart. When Paul speaks of the Gentiles, isn’t he talking about people who might have been atheists or pagans?

Many of the laws are written in my heart but, for instance, the commandment not to fornicate is not written in my heart. I still fornicate in my fantasies. But, the law is on paper. I have read it. I keep it in mind. But I wouldn’t say that it is written in my heart yet. If the law was written in my heart then that would translate into entirely different way of being.

 

[PRmerger]

So in reference to the Euthyphro Dilemma, are morals good because God says so (are subjective in relation to Him), or does God command them because they are good (they transcend God)?

The answer is that God does not command that which is not good for us.

As Edward Feser says:

Now God, given the perfection of His intellect, can in principle only ever command in accordance with reason, and thus God could never command us to do what is bad for us. Hence the first horn of the Euthyphro dilemma is ruled out: God can never command us to torture babies for fun, because torturing babies for fun is the sort of thing that, given our nature, can never in principle be good for us. But the essences that determine the ends of things – our ends, and for that matter the end of reason too as inherently directed toward the true and the good – do not exist independently of God. Rather, given the Scholastic realist understanding of universals, they pre-exist in the divine intellect as the ideas or archetypes by reference to which God creates. Hence the second horn of the Euthyphro dilemma is also ruled out.

 

[PRmerger]

It can be written in the heart. An atheist can have the laws written in his heart. When Paul speaks of the Gentiles, isn’t he talking about people who might have been atheists or pagans?

Many of the laws are written in my heart but, for instance, the commandment not to fornicate is not written in my heart. I still fornicate in my fantasies. But, the law is on paper. I have read it. I keep it in mind. But I wouldn’t say that it is written in my heart yet. If the law was written in my heart then that would translate into entirely different way of being.

Really? It’s not written in your heart? You really are absolutely 100% okay with fornicating in your mind? You think that this is a moral thing to do, yes?

 

[ccmnxc]

The answer is that God does not command that which is not good for us.

As Edward Feser says:

Now God, given the perfection of His intellect, can in principle only ever command in accordance with reason, and thus God could never command us to do what is bad for us. Hence the first horn of the Euthyphro dilemma is ruled out: God can never command us to torture babies for fun, because torturing babies for fun is the sort of thing that, given our nature, can never in principle be good for us. But the essences that determine the ends of things – our ends, and for that matter the end of reason too as inherently directed toward the true and the good – do not exist independently of God. Rather, given the Scholastic realist understanding of universals, they pre-exist in the divine intellect as the ideas or archetypes by reference to which God creates. Hence the second horn of the Euthyphro dilemma is also ruled out.

This response bugs me for some reason, but I will look into it. Thanks.

 

[JamesATyler]

Really? It’s not written in your heart? You really are absolutely 100% okay with fornicating in your mind? You think that this is a moral thing to do, yes?

I suspected we have a different view of what it means to have a law written in the heart. I said that the law is in my mind. That’s not the same thing as having the law written in the heart. At least I think there is a difference. When all of the laws of God are written in the heart, that person is perfect. In his very heart, the perfected heart is moved naturally toward things that are good. That is different then having knowledge of the law. If I could memorize the law and recite it to you word for word that does not mean that the laws are written in my heart. Even with full knowledge of the law, my heart can still be filled with every kind of sin and as a result I will constantly be moved toward sinful things. Yet because I have knowledge of the law I can still resist.

What is written in the mind is words. What is written in the heart is your inner nature. It’s not mere words.

 

[Ben_Quincy]

Please stay on the original topic. Other topics can be discussed by creating new threads.

Thank you.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So in reference to the Euthyphro Dilemma, are morals good because God says so (are subjective in relation to Him), or does God command them because they are good (they transcend God)?

I suspect this same dilemma exists in the mind of any moral agent, in particular, a moral relativist who believes they can have a foundation for ethics without God.

Does any moral agent

1. will the good because it is good or
2. is the good good because the moral agent determines it to be such?

A relativist would have to claim 2) in order to hold a relativist position. Which entails that whatever is determined by a moral agent to be good (for them) is what is good (for them.)

However, if a discrepancy exists between the determinations of two moral agents, then one must either

A) Accept that moral standards are not binding on all moral agents or
B) Accept that some moral principles exist independent of moral agency and it is those principles that are obligatory for all moral agents.

If A) then it must also be accepted that there is no valid means by which to settle disputes regarding discrepant moral principles because only independent moral standards could definitively settle such disputes.

 

[JamesATyler]

This is what I think about morality in regard to God. God’s love is perfect and therefore his laws and morality are perfect. Even though humans are in a fallen state and our capacity for perfect love is diminished as a result, humans do indeed still love. Without God, humans, out of love, do create laws and have morality but it will not be complete or perfect.

Only the transformative power of God, through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit can fully heal and form the heart of a person. It is by the process which God has created through the actions of the Holy Trinity that mankind can be fully restored and perfected. This leads mankind to perfected morality. I do not believe that perfect morality or law can exist without reference to God because God exists also. He is our creator and mankind must have a certain disposition and faithfulness towards him because of our relationship to him. He is due this. If we do not give it we commit a sin.

 

[Bradski]

As Edward Feser says:

Now God, given the perfection of His intellect, can in principle only ever command in accordance with reason, and thus God could never command us to do what is bad for us. Hence the first horn of the Euthyphro dilemma is ruled out: God can never command us to torture babies for fun, because torturing babies for fun is the sort of thing that, given our nature, can never in principle be good for us.

There’s something circular going on here. ‘God can never command us to do something bad like torturing babies because…well, because torturing babies is bad’. Unless I’m mistaken, we can never know ‘what is good for us’ as far as God is concerned. So to say ‘torturing babies for fun’ is wrong is just our idea of what is wrong, not God’s. Unless you say that everything that we think is wrong is also God’s idea of what is wrong. And that has changed with time.

We don’t burn witches any more or torture heretics in the name of the Lord. When we did, was it right or wrong as far as God was concerned? Did He command people to do it? If not and it was wrong, then we made a mistake in interpreting His will and who is to say that we are not doing the same thing today with something less gruesome – like contraception for example.

 

[Bradski]

1. will the good because it is good or
2. is the good good because the moral agent determines it to be such?

I’ll go with 2.

However, if a discrepancy exists between the determinations of two moral agents, then one must either

A) Accept that moral standards are not binding on all moral agents or
B) Accept that some moral principles exist independent of moral agency and it is those principles that are obligatory for all moral agents.

I’ll go with A.

If A) then it must also be accepted that there is no valid means by which to settle disputes regarding discrepant moral principles…

You can’t think of any way *at all *to settle matters in regard to differing points of view?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Originally Posted by PRmerger
The answer is that God does not command that which is not good for us.

As Edward Feser says:
Now God, given the perfection of His intellect, can in principle only ever command in accordance with reason, and thus God could never command us to do what is bad for us. Hence the first horn of the Euthyphro dilemma is ruled out: God can never command us to torture babies for fun, because torturing babies for fun is the sort of thing that, given our nature, can never in principle be good for us. But **the essences that determine the ends of things – our ends, and for that matter the end of reason too as inherently directed toward **the true and the good – do not exist independently of God. Rather, given the Scholastic realist understanding of universals, they pre-exist in the divine intellect as the ideas or archetypes by reference to which God creates. Hence the second horn of the Euthyphro dilemma is also ruled out.

This response bugs me for some reason, but I will look into it. Thanks.

I suspect that, fundamentally, the reason this “bugs” you is because we have been lead to believe that God is merely a moral agent rather than the ground of morality. Moral agents have a responsibility to act as agents for “the good” and therefore are in a position of potentially failing in their responsibility. However, if God is the source of all that exists, then he is, ipso facto, the source of all that is good and nothing but the good can proceed from him. What is, is only what God wills there to be, there is nothing else. Likewise what is good exists as good only because it does, in fact, exist. There is nothing else.

Being and goodness are interchangeable just as matter and energy are. Since God is Being itself, he is also Goodness itself.

We receive our moral sensibility from the nature of what we are as participants in existence. Our human existence is the “good” to the extent that we exist as human beings. What is good is good because it is and to the extent that it is.

It wouldn’t make any sense for the source of all that is to be liable to the judgements of contingent beings as if contingent moral agents would have any juridical priority over what has brought them into being. Even the moral sensibilities of contingent moral agents would fully depend upon the source of Being for their moral sensibilities. Moral truth and goodness, as metaphysical realities, would depend on Being Itself as the source of their validity.

The Euthyphro Dilemma is only a dilemma if God is reduced to the level of contingent moral agent for good or, alternatively, for evil, as the Greek gods were. A more robust notion of God skirts the problem completely.

I can hear the far off whine of “special pleading” coming from the forum antechamber but that noise can safely be ignored because there is no case to be made for it except by presuming a straw god.

 

[PRmerger]

We don’t burn witches any more or torture heretics in the name of the Lord. When we did, was it right or wrong as far as God was concerned?

Umm…it was always wrong, Bradski.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’ll go with 2.

I’ll go with A.

You can’t think of any way *at all *to settle matters in regard to differing points of view?

Sure there are ways to settle disputes. I can think of a few, but neither bludgeoning other points of view into submission nor buying them off by offering a healthy settlement provide a substantive moral means by which to settle the issue as a moral disagreement. If there is to be a “moral” resolution then that requires an objectively verifiable moral standard that is not, ultimately, dependent on either party but fair to both.

If you go with 2) then the good is good, logically speaking, because each party wills it to be. Then, objectively, there can be no “good” by which to resolve the issue because both are good, even when the two versions are contradictory.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

What moral acts would you do as a Christian that an atheist would not?

For just one, thank God for my very existence. Ingratitude is a hateful disposition.

 

[tonyrey]

Bradski

What moral acts would you do as a Christian that an atheist would not?

For just one, thank God for my very existence. Ingratitude is a hateful disposition.

The Godless are not necessarily ungrateful but it doesn’t make sense to express gratitude to purposeless particles! Their morality has no **rational **foundation.

 

[Bradski]

The Godless are not necessarily ungrateful but it doesn’t make sense to express gratitude to purposeless particles! Their morality has no **rational **foundation.

Ah, those purposeless particles! Doncha just love them, Tony. Do you really think that rational thought has no place in regard to morality? None at all? There has never been rational thought brought to the table? By anyone? Do you know what percentage of civilisation you include when you refer to ‘Godless’? Do you know who you exclude?

Nah. You don’t.

What moral acts would you do as a Christian that an atheist would not?

For just one, thank God for my very existence.

That’s not a moral act. I’ll. give you another go.