Morality without God?

[Bradski]

Moses started with a blank slate! Upon which he wrote down the laws.

I was going to argue that point, then it clicked.

But as more and more people have no religion, and therefore no set of moral convictions to grow up with, more and more children will grow up without God. They will pass their godless morality on to their children.

But you keep equating no religion with no morals, which is patently untrue. As PR said earlier, you don’t have to believe in God to be a moral person. Godless morality doesn’t mean no morality. Your moral outlook and mine are practically the same and I have no god. When I asked you earlier about a good moral act that you would do that an atheist wouldn’t, you came up empty.

This is what is happening in America today.

America is the most overwhelmingly Christian country in Western civilisation. I keep getting told that you are specifically a Christian Nation. You are decades away from, for example, electing an atheist President. Nearly 80% of everyone there identifies with Christianity in some way.

If what you say about Christian morality is correct, then the US of A would be heaven on earth. Is it not?

 

[PRmerger]

America is the most overwhelmingly Christian country in Western civilisation. I keep getting told that you are specifically a Christian Nation. You are decades away from, for example, electing an atheist President. Nearly 80% of everyone there identifies with Christianity in some way.

I am not sure what identifying with Christianity has to do with the impossibility of electing an atheist president.

I identify with Christianity and I will publicly proclaim that I would vote for an atheist president, if she or he were moral, intelligent and professed to uphold the dignity of the human person from conception until natural death.

 

[Bradski]

Following up on my last post, when someone makes the claim that, for example, contraception is wrong, then the burden of proof falls on them to demonstrate that it ought to be obligatory for all moral beings based upon sound moral reasoning.

Why should someone have to demonstrate that it ought to be obligatory? I don’t think that. I said earlier:

‘For example, you might think that contraception is wrong but I don’t. That is, I personally know I’m right. You personally know that you are. And in this case never the twain. I can’t determine your views for you and vice versa’.

That is to say, if you don’t want to use it, then fine. No problem. Just because I have no objection to it doesn’t mean I want you to put a condom on every time you have sex. Because you using, or not using contraception, doesn’t affect anyone else (apart from your partner).

I can give you my reasons for believing that contraception can be a good thing and you can give me reasons why you think it’s not and if we agree to disagree, so be it. We then both get on with our own lives.

Yes, I understand that we may have differences on some matters that, if they go one way or the other, may have an affect (or presumed affect) on the other’s life. But no-one is suggestion that you have be made to agree or made to comply.

If you don’t like same sex marriage for example, then don’t marry another guy. If you don’t like porn, then don’t watch it. If you disagree with drinking, then stay out of bars. If you think that sex outside marriage is wrong, then keep it in your trousers until after the ceremony. If you don’t like bad language, then don’t swear.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Why should someone have to demonstrate that it ought to be obligatory? I don’t think that. I said earlier:

‘For example, you might think that contraception is wrong but I don’t. That is, I personally know I’m right. You personally know that you are. And in this case never the twain. I can’t determine your views for you and vice versa’.

That is to say, if you don’t want to use it, then fine. No problem. Just because I have no objection to it doesn’t mean I want you to put a condom on every time you have sex. Because you using, or not using contraception, doesn’t affect anyone else (apart from your partner).

I can give you my reasons for believing that contraception can be a good thing and you can give me reasons why you think it’s not and if we agree to disagree, so be it. We then both get on with our own lives.

Yes, I understand that we may have differences on some matters that, if they go one way or the other, may have an affect (or presumed affect) on the other’s life. But no-one is suggestion that you have be made to agree or made to comply.

If you don’t like same sex marriage for example, then don’t marry another guy. If you don’t like porn, then don’t watch it. If you disagree with drinking, then stay out of bars. If you think that sex outside marriage is wrong, then keep it in your trousers until after the ceremony. If you don’t like bad language, then don’t swear.

Then your position, it seems to me, is that none of those are actually moral issues precisely because they are not obligatory on all human beings. You are claiming, apparently, that each of them is optional by the mere fact that you are not claiming they apply to all moral agents equally.

Would you say the same thing about willfully killing or raping another human being? I doubt it. You would not say, “If you don’t like murdering someone, then don’t, but for the love of Mike stop telling everyone else they must stop because such issues are just personal preferences!”

Obviously, you would not argue that rape and murder are merely optional choices in the same way that visiting bars or using bad language are, are you? It seems to me that there is a distinction to be had here, one that you seem hesitant to admit. Why?

The difficulty is that until we are clear as to what precisely “moral” means we cannot carry on a further discussion. I am suggesting that moral means whatever, by definition, is obligatory for all moral beings to abide by. If you say that refraining from sex before marriage or not using profane language are merely personal preferences, as you seem to be, then your claim amounts to saying these are not really moral issues, but more like personal choices that ought to be left to individuals to decide on.

 

[Portofino]

The difficulty is that until we are clear as to what precisely “moral” means we cannot carry on a further discussion. I am suggesting that moral means whatever, by definition, is obligatory for all moral beings to abide by. If you say that refraining from sex before marriage or not using profane language are merely personal preferences, as you seem to be, then your claim amounts to saying these are not really moral issues, but more like personal choices that ought to be left to individuals to decide on.

I think that’s fair. Some further examples:

–To circumcise or not to circumcise? For a Jew, a moral obligation (by your definition). For a Catholic, a personal preference.

–To eat pork or not to eat pork? For a Jew, a moral obligation to refrain. For a Catholic, once again, a personal preference.

–To drink alcohol or not to drink alcohol? For a Muslim, a moral obligation to refrain. For a Catholic or a Jew, a personal choice (a potentially harmful one, but not sinful, in and of itself)

–Pre-marital sex – for a Catholic, a moral obligation to refrain. For a secular humanist, for example, a personal choice (and, like alcohol, one with potential consequences, ranging from anything from heartbreak, to an STD, to an unintended pregnancy, which can also happen within the context of marriage; but, then again, also potentially leading to pleasure and emotional intimacy, something which a secular humanist posits that one can engage in “responsibly” – meaning, in a way that harms neither self nor others).

The drinking of alcohol is fraught with all kinds of risks, as well – alcohol poisoning; unintended sexual behavior; DWI; eventual cirrhosis, etc. Nonetheless, it is a personal choice and a personal responsibility, but not one for which one is free to escape the potential consequences.

 

[Bradski]

Then your position, it seems to me, is that none of those are actually moral issues precisely because they are not obligatory on all human beings. You are claiming, apparently, that each of them is optional by the mere fact that you are not claiming they apply to all moral agents equally.

Would you say the same thing about willfully killing or raping another human being?

The issues that I used aren’t really moral issues for me but are issues that I thought we might disagree on. And ones that I assumed would be moral issues for you. I was simply highlighting that difference. It’s difficult to think of something that we’d both class as immoral/immoral on which we’d actually disagree. Cheating, stealing, lying, murder, rape etc, on the not unreasonable assumption that each act is going to have a negative effect on someone, we’d both agree were immoral.

Part of your reason for thinking that would be your religious belief, but I think (I certainly hope) that you’d still think that they were wrong without any religious belief. And your reasons would then be the same as mine (empathy, self-interest, the Golden Rule to mention three). You might think that you need a belief in God to understand the difference between right and wrong, but I don’t.

 

[ccmnxc]

Well let’s see how the reasons you listed stand in a naturalistic worldview:

empathy,

Why out one be empathetic? Why shouldn’t we all be selfish? It is irrelevant on atheism since animated chunks of matter like ourselves have not intrinsic value. This is the crux of the problem. We can try to propagate humanity all we want but we are not bound to do so since we have no value.

self-interest,

Same problem.

the Golden Rule

Why should I treat others the way I want to be treated? Maybe I should shoot for top of the social ladder and get rid of everyone in my way? Furthermore, why should I accept this rule?

 

[JamesATyler]

You might think that you need a belief in God to understand the difference between right and wrong, but I don’t.

As far as you know anyways.

 

[Portofino]

Why should I treat others the way I want to be treated? Maybe I should shoot for top of the social ladder and get rid of everyone in my way? Furthermore, why should I accept this rule?

Nothing is stopping you – Catholic or non-Catholic, all of us have the experience of volition.

Any of us is free to do anything we want to do – so long as we are willing to accept the consequences.

Wisdom has traditionally been conceived of as the ability to anticipate in advance – and to avoid – actions that will incur unwanted consequences.

For example, if you’re a Catholic, you behave as you do – in large part – because you want to go to heaven (to be with God) and to avoid hell.

If you’re a non-believer, you behave as you do – in large part – because you want to live, to be happy, and to be free (literally, you do not want to be incarcerated!)

You could ask,“why don’t you want to be miserable, enslaved, or dead?” But, then again, you could just as well ask, “why don’t you want to be in hell?”

 

[Bradski]

Why out one be empathetic? Why shouldn’t we all be selfish? It is irrelevant on atheism since animated chunks of matter like ourselves have not intrinsic value. This is the crux of the problem. We can try to propagate humanity all we want but we are not bound to do so since we have no value.

If you want to think that someone who doesn’t believe in a god believes that life has no value and other people have no value and that they themselves have no value, then go for it. But please let me know if you find anyone who matches that description.

“Do you think that your friends and family and you yourself have value?”
“Yes, of course”.
“Do you believe in the same God as I do?”
“No, I don’t”.
“Whaaa? But…I don’t…that can’t be…right. I mean…how do you…I’m sorry, I’m just so confused”.

And you can’t decide whether to be empathetic or not. It’s a natural feeling that you get when you recognise someone who (wait for it) you realise has value is having problems. If I saw you fall in the street and hurt yourself and in pain, then my natural feeling of empathy would encourage me to help you. I would feel empathy because I see a fellow human being, whom I recognise has value, in trouble. So I would appreciate that you have value and yet…I don’t believe in your god. Confusing, isn’t it.

Same problem (with the Golden Rule). Why should I treat others the way I want to be treated? Maybe I should shoot for top of the social ladder and get rid of everyone in my way? Furthermore, why should I accept this rule?

Because it’s the basis for civilisation.

 

[JamesATyler]

If you’re a non-believer, you behave as you do – in large part – because you want to live, to be happy, and to be free (literally, you do not want to be incarcerated!)

You’re morality seems largely dependent upon the state. If you live in an evil state then you will do what you have to do in order to survive, enjoy yourself, and stay out of trouble with the law. You might say you would flee to another state but what if the whole world becomes fascist, racist, sexist, devalues life, etc etc. You’ll adapt.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski
**
When I asked you earlier about a good moral act that you would do that an atheist wouldn’t, you came up empty. **

No I didn’t. You came up empty when you refused to recognize gratitude to your Creator as a moral act.

America is the most overwhelmingly Christian country in Western civilisation. I keep getting told that you are specifically a Christian Nation. You are decades away from, for example, electing an atheist President. Nearly 80% of everyone there identifies with Christianity in some way.

It is nowhere near so Christian as it used to be. Nor is Europe. This is a fact.

So also is the fact that crime is on the rise.
**
But you keep equating no religion with no morals, which is patently untrue.**

I didn’t say that. I specifically said that people can feed off the morals of a previously religious generation. However, they cannot feed off them indefinitely if there is no moral teacher and guide such as the Churches provide.

As PR said earlier, you don’t have to believe in God to be a moral person.

I agree. But again, failing to be nourished by a godly source of morals, the morals you get are likely to decline in quality. The Romans began to lose their religion, and that is precisely about the time that gladiatorial combat to the death became a popular sport, and feeding Christians to the beasts in the arena became a popular entertainment. Fortunately, gladiatorial combat gradually receded as Christianity advanced.

Godless morality doesn’t mean no morality.

That’s right. But then you might not be happy with the morality that is forced upon you by the biggest man with the biggest club.

**Your moral outlook and mine are practically the same and I have no god. **

They are not practically the same. I believe the foundation of morals is the will of God. Your morality rests upon a hill of shifting sands.

 

[JamesATyler]

Anyone in this conversation shed a drop of blood for what they believe in? I’m just curious.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . If I saw you fall in the street and hurt yourself and in pain, then my natural feeling of empathy would encourage me to help you. . .

as an aside: this is by no means a personal comment and I haven’t thought about whether it has anything to do with the discussion, but I was reminded of a comedy routine that made me laugh. I won’t mention the comedians name because he was rather rude.

With a face filled with pity he discloses that when he sees a homeless person, he wants to give him money. He doesn’t of course, but it makes him feel very good about himself that he has such feelings. They are such warm sensations. He pats himself in the back as he walks by.

 

[Portofino]

You’re morality seems largely dependent upon the state. If you live in an evil state then you will do what you have to do in order to survive, enjoy yourself, and stay out of trouble with the law. You might say you would flee to another state but what if the whole world becomes fascist, racist, sexist, devalues life, etc etc. You’ll adapt.

Actually no, but I appreciate that this wasn’t fully clear from my post.

There are many people in our society – including many Catholics, frankly – that do mistreat people and “step on others” in order to rise to the top (a kind of unfortunate twist on “let not the left hand know what the right hand is doing”, whereby their religious beliefs are like a faucet that they turn on and off – for example, the rationalization that, “business is business”).

I personally wouldn’t be happy living that way, and I don’t want to live that way, even though I grant that nothing is stopping me.

I frankly would have different admonishments – depending on whether I am speaking to a Catholic or a non-believer – to those who do seem to behave that way.

To a Catholic I would say – and have to realistically admit that my words may be ineffectual – “do you not see a contradiction between your behavior, and your professed beliefs? Are you not a Christian?”

To a non-believer whose ear I actually had, I would say – “is this behavior really going to give you what you want and, if it is, will it really make you happy?” (I’ve observed that many people who have that “cut-throat” attitude in life are pretty miserable in terms of being unsatisfied with what they have, still restless and discontented and, though this seems obvious to me, I acknowledge that it’s debatable). Or, perhaps, I would say, “the way you treat people in general, is that how you treat the people you actually care about? The way you treat others in general is the way you are destined to treat those closest to you, those you actually care about” (which I’ve observed, as well). Or perhaps I would say, “who would want to be your friend? Who can ever trust you? Who’s gonna have your back, in the long haul?” or even, “if everyone behaved as you do, where would society be?” (and I acknowledge that this last one would not work on everyone, since they could say, “but not everyone does behave like that; I do!”)

But if that doesn’t work – and it may not, even with folks who consider themselves very religious – I suppose I have no alternative but to steer clear of that person, as if I were avoiding some rogue elephant. I would consider this an “unpleasant” person to associate with and would count myself lucky if I am not in the path of their “rampage” through life; further, I would consider them a danger to others, even if their behavior is not illegal (dangerous to me and to those I care about, dangerous to other people, ultimately dangerous to the society in which I myself participate).

 

[tonyrey]

Anyone in this conversation shed a drop of blood for what they believe in? I’m just curious.

Your question suggests that no one would do so if it were necessary. Like countless other people I have chosen more than once to endure hardship for the sake of my principles…

 

[JamesATyler]

Your question suggests that no one would do so if it were necessary. Like countless other people I have chosen more than once to endure hardship for the sake of my principles…

No that’s not what I suggest. I suggest that a person who has not endured hardship is untested. Look, the atheistic folks you are talking to probably know all about the severe persecution of Jesus and the Christians throughout history. They are not moved by any of that. They might just say, “we’ll all kinds of people have been persecuted.” It’s all just information and questionable information at that. Isn’t that the thrust of the argument about the validity of the Gospels? “Why should I be moved by those accounts? It all might just be BS.” So can anyone here speak to these folks from a position of experience, where God actually became necessary to understand what is moral? Or why he became necessary for anything that you couldn’t get from a parent, friend, or any human?

 

[JamesATyler]

Actually no, but I appreciate that this wasn’t fully clear from my post.

There are many people in our society – including many Catholics, frankly – that do mistreat people and “step on others” in order to rise to the top (a kind of unfortunate twist on “let not the left hand know what the right hand is doing”, whereby their religious beliefs are like a faucet that they turn on and off – for example, the rationalization that, “business is business”).

There are lots of people that go around in the guise of a Christian person. When they do something that isn’t in line with someone who actually fears God, why blame it on Jesus? He said that those who do his father’s will are his brother, sister, and mother. Anyone can go and join the Catholic Church. The doors are wide open.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

James
**
So can anyone here speak to these folks from a position of experience, where God actually became necessary to understand what is moral? Or why he became necessary for anything that you couldn’t get from a parent, friend, or any human? **

Yes. When I was ten years old (and generally misbehaving) my mother out of desperation (she was not a Catholic) took me to a Catholic Church for the first time. It was there that I learned about God and formed an attachment to Jesus and Christian morality and began to attend Catholic schools. Unfortunately, later in life I abandoned my faith for about 25 years and became an atheist. Those were, in retrospect, the unhappiest years of my life, though I did not know it at the time. Since then I have found Christ again, and he has become necessary for anything that I “couldn’t get from a parent, friend, or any human.” But I’m afraid you have to have lived my life to be convinced by this kind of explanation.

All such appeals of reasoning tend to fall on deaf ears if anyone is determined not to hear and believe them.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The issues that I used aren’t really moral issues for me but are issues that I thought we might disagree on. And ones that I assumed would be moral issues for you. I was simply highlighting that difference. It’s difficult to think of something that we’d both class as immoral/immoral on which we’d actually disagree. Cheating, stealing, lying, murder, rape etc, on the not unreasonable assumption that each act is going to have a negative effect on someone, we’d both agree were immoral.

Part of your reason for thinking that would be your religious belief, but I think (I certainly hope) that you’d still think that they were wrong without any religious belief. And your reasons would then be the same as mine (empathy, self-interest, the Golden Rule to mention three). You might think that you need a belief in God to understand the difference between right and wrong, but I don’t.

I don’t think a sense of right and wrong depends upon a belief in God, however, I do suspect that without God as the ground of morality it is difficult to justify moral principles as obligatory.

Given that moral principles direct or oversee behaviour and behaviours typically come about, where humans are concerned, as a result of reason and motive, a purely atheistic view of the world provides neither good reasons nor the motivating impulse to act morally.

I also would suggest that atheists hold moral principles not because of atheistic beliefs, but more for reasons or motives that have nothing to do with atheistic beliefs.

The logical corollary to atheism is something like metaphysical materialism. It would seem difficult to derive a moral principle such as, “It is wrong to wantonly kill other human beings,” from metaphysical materialism, logically speaking.

So my question to you would be: ”Kindly explain your reasoning for convincing your fellow atheists that moral principles are obligatory for all human beings.

You see what you seem to rely upon is that having a moral conscience is not logically inconsistent with atheism, so that it might be possible for an atheist to consistently hold moral values of a sort. However, what you have failed to do is show that moral values can arise, logically, from an atheistic world view such as metaphysical materialism. I see no reason for thinking that atheists necessarily would have moral principles that derive from their world view. Atheists like Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin and Lenin all clearly demonstrate that atheism is quite consistent with a variety of moral views, including seriously immoral ones, and directly entails none.

It might be argued that a world view that is profoundly amoral and fails to explain or defend moral principles must be, by that fact, a deficient one, no?