Morality Without Religion?

[sara888]

**Gilbert,

Wisdom and Humility are two of the greatest gifts .

Now if we all could have Divine Love, which would be the greatest of all the blessings.

Your post’s or acknowledgements are not vain. no muddling on your part, however you are brilliant with Theology and interpretation.**

Sara

Sara

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Aw … shucks!!!

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

You can’t.

No, I can’t, because

1. you limit morality to a tiny subset of what morality is about
2. you ignore every argument I make
3. you keep redefining words so they suit your ideology. Ok, this is the apologetics section, so it’s common behaviour. It is quite similar to dicussing with a Marxist, they keep redefining words like revolution, freedom, capital, democracy, etc. too.

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

Even if religion were abolished from the world today (which we Catholics believe to be impossible) the atheists would still have to come up with a plan to hold society together with a collective sense of right and wrong and an unimpeachable source for the authority of the laws.

Don’t they?

What is their plan? Or have they ever made one?

The atheists don’t have a plan, and never will. When will you understand, that the only thing atheists have in common is NOT TO BELIEVE in gods? There is no other ideology behind it. Therefore atheists follow all kinds of philosophies and politcial agendas.

If you are looking for plan, look into secular humanism for example. Kants kategorischer Imperativ is a perfect example of how to create a morality without any higher powers.

 

[sara888]

---

Anatheist said:The atheists don’t have a plan, and never will. When will you understand, that the only thing atheists have in common is NOT TO BELIEVE in gods? There is no other ideology behind it. Therefore atheists follow all kinds of philosophies and politcial agendas.

Sara says:
Hypocritical to claim the only thing atheists have are “not to believe in God,” then you go on to suggest you follow all kinds of philosohies with no ideology behind it.??? HUH.?

The doctrine of atheism is that there is no belief. An atheist, as a rule, does not believe in a God or gods

Therefore, the Human Race and all other Life includiing Mother Nature are doomed. Therefore, if true, my premise is that Life is without Ultimate Meaning , Value and or Purpose.?

Since All life is Meaningless and Valueless, Your Life, and all other’s Life is Purposeless. Death
stands with open arms at the end of life: What is the purpose of life, to what end has life been lived. Is it for nothing.?
What would be the ultimate purpose.?******

With No God, In a world without God, there can be no objective right or wrong, only our culturally and personally relative, subjective judgements. To say there is a right and wrong when there is a God, makes sense. To say there is a right or wrong when there is no God, makes no sense.

Sara

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

The atheists don’t have a plan, and never will. When will you understand, that the only thing atheists have in common is NOT TO BELIEVE in gods?

Then in a completely atheistic society you will have moral anarchy. Atheists will certainly have that in common since they will all suffer the consequences of no plan and each man being a law unto himself.

If you are looking for plan, look into secular humanism for example. Kants kategorischer Imperativ is a perfect example of how to create a morality without any higher powers.

And so you think if everyone will just read Kant and go along with the Categorical Imperative, then we will have a moral glue that will hold society together?

Isn’t that what the communists used to say about Karl Marx? And by the way, weren’t the communists mostly atheists?

Whew!

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

Then in a completely atheistic society

There is no such thing as a atheistic society. A society must be build on a principle not on a common rejection of a principle. That principle needs not necessarily be a religion.

And so you think if everyone will just read Kant and go along with the Categorical Imperative, then we will have a moral glue that will hold society together?

Just reading - no. Following it - certainly. Religion is perhaps more efficient, the fear of unescapable judgement and eternal punishment might keep the even most stubborn in line. But is that, how we want to see humans? And has it worked in the past?

And by the way, weren’t the communists mostly atheists?

So what? Even if ALL communists were atheists, that means nothing. You do know the concepts of subsets and supersets, don’t you?
Or do you think it has a significance on moral issues, that mostly all crusaders were Christians or mostly all Italian Fascists were Catholics?

 

[barsapp]

AnAtheist:

Or do you think it has a significance on moral issues, that mostly all crusaders were Christians or mostly all Italian Fascists were Catholics?

what about the National Socialists?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

So what? Even if ALL communists were atheists, that means nothing.

And I suppose you would reverse that to say “Even if all Christians were crusaders, that means nothing.” I don’t think so. I think you would use that as a proof that Christianity is a warrior religion, and you’d be justified in saying so.

By the way, you said above that we should all study and live Kant’s Categorical Imperative to find a morality without religion. Would you mind pointing out where Kant says that God does not exist? Would you mind pointing out where Kant affirms that he is an atheist? Please give book and chapter.

Thank you so much.

 

[barsapp]

It is perfectly possible to organize a society without any religion or transcendent moral principle. It is not desirable to reach God’s Realm on earth. This is what we see nowadays and in a better way Nazis and Communists tried to do.

As I stated in #70, many philosophers and politicians consider religion as a means to achieve social order. In this sense, it is not the only means and could be replaced. Atheist law replaced religion. As a result we have a new form of “morality”: relativism.

Atheists profess Atheism. It is not a religion, but it is an ideology and ideology is the name of religion in a secularized world. Atheism in action: Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case Roe vs. Wade.

Can society survive with such “morality”? We are witnessing a self destruction process.

 

[sara888]

**SIZE=2]**Anatheist said: Religion is perhaps more efficient, the fear of unescapable judgement and eternal punishment might keep the even most stubborn in line. But is that, how we want to see humans? And has it worked in the past?

Yes it works for most, otherwise the world would be in a complete state of anarchy.

What happens if you are wrong.? do you want to chance or risk eternal damanation. ?

You have no idea what hell is like, you should read the history and lives of the Saints, they have witnessed Heaven , Hell and Purgatory .Weather you believe it or not their are Demonic forces here and now on earth. How do explain that. Science cant and never will.

How do you explain medical miracles, medical science cannot explain it.

Why cant Science explain the unexplainable.?
Sara****]

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Gilbert Keith:

Let me clarify my question.

Suppose the atheist/agnostic dream was realized. Suppose the whole world came to its senses and abandoned all religion. How then would morality be passed on from one generation to the next so that there would be a moral glue that holds people together with common laws?

By education and example​

Would each generation have to start from scratch and create its own morality, since there would be no binding tradition to which the vast majority must pay heed?

How would this be done? Would morality have to be imposed by legal sanctions. Who would be entitled to impose those sanctions? The majority? But what if there is no majority, and instead there are only pluralities? Which plurality would prevail in defining the laws? The plurality with the greatest number of troops?

Is right then to be defined only by military or police might?

This is to forget the authority of habit and tradition - and the sheer inertia which helps to stabilise societies. If I were an atheist, I would be tempted to make comments about the readiness with which Christianity has used coercion and force of every kind to “recommend” its teachings. Such things might be necessary for an orthodoxy which regards all alternatives as lies and deceits of satan, but if an attitude to life is non-dogmatic, the worst of that kind of thing should be avoidable. Communism is, arguably, too religious (too Christian ?) for its own good - it might be far easier to live with, if it were less concerned with orthodoxies, doctrinal purity, and the like. IOW - the evil in it may be ascribable to the aggressive Christianity in it: which in turn came from the intolerant spirit of Second Temple Judaism. (The sufferings of the Samaritans at the hands of the Jews deserve more attention than they get, IMO. Ezra & Nehemiah might not unreasonably be called the fathers of segregation and apartheid - their fanaticism & bigotry is far from attractive).​

Since atheism is not Christian, nor concerned with orthodoxy, nor concerned to be cruel in order to be kind, it should be tolerable enough for non-atheists. It is the dogmatic and persecuting religions, convinced of their perfect right-eousness, that have done so much harm - expel that spirit from atheism, and the temptation is, if not ended, at least greatly lessened. (Atheists are, of course, as capable of brutality as any Inquisitor - but at least they don’t claim any transcendent purpose or cause is being served by it. Religion, by contrast, often invokes God’s Will as the rationale for its crimes, and turns brutality into a sacred obligation; even a virtue. There can be, and has been, “destalinisation” - “detheosisation” is another matter. It is believers in God - not their atheistic neighbours - who seem to find it difficult to apologise or purge away the evils of the past. That is contrary to what one might expect. ) ##

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

*GOTTLE OF GEER *

It is believers in God - not their atheistic neighbours - who seem to find it difficult to apologise or purge away the evils of the past. That is contrary to what one might expect.

This is rubbish and you ought to know it if you are a Catholic.

The Sacarament of Reconciliation, not to mention periodic apologies from the popes for the sins of the Church’s most highly placed members, ought to establish that true Catholics and Christians of every stripe will try to purge themselves of their evil past.

Now tell us … but first take a deep breath … what atheist ever purged himself by the confession of his sins, and what atheist leader ever apologized for his own sins, never mind the sins of other atheists who share with him a common mindset toward being their own dictators of what is right and wrong.

You can’t do it.

And you need to read some history.

Go into any prison. You will find the men there are of two types. The ones who have purged themselves of their evil past and will reform when they get out.

And the ones who do not believe in God, who will never repent their sins because there is no one to repent to, and who will be back in prison for the same or worse crimes shortly after they are released.

 

[AnAtheist]

Gilbert Keith:

By the way, you said above that we should all study and live Kant’s Categorical Imperative to find a morality without religion. Would you mind pointing out where Kant says that God does not exist? Would you mind pointing out where Kant affirms that he is an atheist? Please give book and chapter.

I have no idea what god Kant worshipped. For his 100% god-free categorical imperative that question is not at all important.
But wait, I detect a pattern…

 

[AnAtheist]

otherwise the world would be in a complete state of anarchy.
Otherwise? When was the last time you took a look at this world?

 

[sara888]

******The world is a mess, however if most did not have religious morals, yes it would be in a state of complete anarchy and chaos. ******

Just curious, why is it you dont believe in God, have you been an Atheist most of your life.?

I was wondering why you evaded the question below.

Why cant Science explain the unexplainable.?

Sara

 

[john_doran]

Gilbert Keith:

Then in a completely atheistic society you will have moral anarchy. Atheists will certainly have that in common since they will all suffer the consequences of no plan and each man being a law unto himself.

i don’t understand this position, and it is one i see a lot on this forum…

as catholics, we believe that god wrote the moral law on the hearts of man, or, in other words, that all (properly functioning) people have a natural inclination toward, and a basic understanding of, good and right. i mean, the success of your very argument depends on the existence of such a moral sense - if you didn’t expect atheists to have a basic belief in the objectivity of morality, then it would be downright useless to try to get them to understand that, without god, there can’t be any objective moral order.

and that’s the rub - it’s not that you can’t be moral and be an atheist, but rather, if anything, that you can’t be a consistently moral atheist. and i’m not even sure if that’s true. but if it is, then it’s a subtle inconsistency that i myself - with years of this stuff under my belt - don’t really perceive.

look, people are naturally inclined to pursue what they think of as good. and what they think of as good is partly nature, but even more a result of nurture - they are taught what’s right and wrong. and most people teach their children the same moral fundamentals: treat others how you want to be treated; do none harm unless you can’t avoid it; don’t cheat or steal or lie. and so on.

but just having or lacking some kind of rational foundation for one’s moral worldview isn’t a guarantee of anything - there are lying, cheating, adulterous, violent (catholic) theists, and there are good, generous, kind, loving atheists.

and i point this out simply by way of illustrating why it strikes me that the so-called moral argument is a tremendously uncompelling bit of natural theology: it just makes no obvious sense to me to tell someone that they can’t be moral without god while standing at the front of a long line of moral atrocities committed by god-fearing men.

you may be right, but you’re just not going to be convincing.

 

[AnAtheist]

sara888:

Just curious, why is it you dont believe in God,
That would hijack the thread…

have you been an Atheist most of your life.?

yes

I was wondering why you evaded the question below.
Why cant Science explain the unexplainable.?

The question answers itself, doesn’t it? The unexplained cannot be explained by definition. More interesting is the question “is there anything unexplainable”?

 

[sara888]

******AnAtheist said:The unexplained cannot be explained by definition. More interesting is the question “is there anything unexplainable”?

Yes there are many things unexplainable- miracles, Angels, Paranormal, etc.,

So, if the unexplained cant be explained for example Miracles, Angels, Paranormal and More Unexplainable events , there has to be a reason why, how could you not be objective to the possibility that a higher power or supreme being as God is responsible and can only explain such occurences. ****

Sara**

 

[Hilly]

I think its sad that some religious people feel that were there no religion/god they would degenerate into some kind of monster. It would seem they have plenty of faith in their god, yet little or none in themselves.