Supreme Being and Morality

[w_stewart]

Is it possible to know what is right and what is wrong if there is no God?

Atheists argue that Buddhists still have the sense of morality even they do not have the concept of a god.

 

[MindOverMatter]

Is it possible to know what is right and what is wrong if there is no God?

Atheists argue that Buddhists still have the sense of morality even they do not have the concept of a god.

We would have to assume that anything could exist without God; which in my book, is streatching the human imagination and science beyond their ligitimate limits .

There are 3 types of morality.

1. There is the type we learn from experiences; likes and dislikes.
2. There is the type that we learn from philosophical reflection and meditation on certain ideals; which is possibly the type that Buddhists speak of.
3. And then there is the type that comes only from revelation; but it is only true if God exists.

We all have a sense of good to some degree; even though the standard of morality has a tendency to differ from culture to culture. We all basically believe in ideals such as honor, goodness, virtue, love and peace.

To know “true” Morality, Morality has to exist objectively. So if the Buddists trully know Of Good And Evil, then they are either in denial, or they have failed to understand what it means to say that something is good, and that something is evil.

Bottom line; right and wrong is only true if such a thing is “objectively true”. If morality is just something that somebody made up, then we can only understand it as a human fantasy. In other words, if I rip your heart out and eat you liver, and then kill three other people in the process, nobody can say that I have done something “wrong”; and any attempt to convince me as such would be brainwashing. In reality, my behavior is just an act of nature which is ultimate reducible to natural causes. So if anybody to blame, it is reality. But like I said; good and evil is a lie.

However; the fact that we know of morality, and can sense its effects in respect of perceiving objective reality, encourages me to think that there is more to reality then the Laws of physics. It seems more reasonable to think that objective moral values do exist; but the so must God. The idea that moral states of mind are ultimately reducible to energy makes no sense and does not explain our sense of morality. Natural explanations only go as far as to say that which is already obvious. Various states and qualities that we observe, including observation, arrive through a medium of physics, and act according to the laws of physics. That does nothing to explain the qualities we observes, or what they are in nature. These realities, especailly morality, is best explained by an objectively perfect God.

 

[BlaineTog]

Is it possible to know what is right and what is wrong if there is no God?

Absolutely. The law is written on our hearts, after all. Also, the moral person is the healthy person, so it is entirely possible to be moral for entirely subjective, selfish reasons.

 

[ricmat]

By definition, any law, including laws of morality, require a lawgiver. And Who is the lawgiver of the laws written on our hearts?

 

[SpiritMeadow]

Of course it is possible and of course it happens all the time. There is no proven limit of the mind to conceive of a moral right and wrong absent a believe in a Creator. In fact, one might easily conclude that a mind that comes to that conclusion on its own has a firmer grasp and respect for morality rather than one who accepts a set of “given” behaviors deemed essential to avoid damnation. If such is not the case, surely someone will present a scientific study to that effect.

 

[ricmat]

Of course it is possible and of course it happens all the time. There is no proven limit of the mind to conceive of a moral right and wrong absent a believe in a Creator. In fact, one might easily conclude that a mind that comes to that conclusion on its own has a firmer grasp and respect for morality rather than one who accepts a set of “given” behaviors deemed essential to avoid damnation. If such is not the case, surely someone will present a scientific study to that effect.

For the concept of “right” and “wrong” to have a substantial meaning - something more than an opinion, it has to have the weight of authority behind it. Otherwise is it just…an opinion.

Some people come to agreement with the Lawgiver without even being aware of his existence, but the fact is, only God can define what is right and what is wrong. The original sin of Adam and Eve was an attempt to define for themselves what right and wrong was.

 

[Jon_S]

Romans 2:14-16

 

[SpiritMeadow]

For the concept of “right” and “wrong” to have a substantial meaning - something more than an opinion, it has to have the weight of authority behind it. Otherwise is it just…an opinion.

Some people come to agreement with the Lawgiver without even being aware of his existence, but the fact is, only God can define what is right and what is wrong. The original sin of Adam and Eve was an attempt to define for themselves what right and wrong was.

That could well be a correct belief. I would be of the opinion that that is part of the Spirit that we all contain, an innate understanding of right and wrong. still it is not a thing that can be proven and you cannot define it out of possibility by claiming that a lawgiver is required. The behavior remains the same regardless.Your argument, while I personally adhere to it, is circular.

Man certainly can determine that certain behaviors enhance or detract from ultimate survival of the species, planet, etc. These aer just as much morally right as any perceived to come only from God.

 

[BlaineTog]

By definition, any law, including laws of morality, require a lawgiver. And Who is the lawgiver of the laws written on our hearts?

It’s not particularly relevant, is it? Oh sure, you need an answer if you start to wonder why you should be moral, but whether you know who’s giving the laws or not doesn’t really matter if you already know the laws. You know how to follow them, so follow them.

 

[ricmat]

It’s not particularly relevant, is it? Oh sure, you need an answer if you start to wonder why you should be moral, but whether you know who’s giving the laws or not doesn’t really matter if you already know the laws. You know how to follow them, so follow them.

Of course it is relevant. The title of the thread is Supreme Being and Morality. All laws have a lawgiver. The law of gravity has a lawgiver, and so do the moral laws whether written in the bible or written in our hearts. That Lawgiver is obviously God.

Some people invent their own laws contrary to God’s law. Knowing that God is the lawgiver of the natural law makes that law take precedence over any law that we humans come up with.

 

[fhansen]

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif

Knowing that God is the lawgiver of the natural law makes that law take precedence over any law that we humans come up with.

That’s great. It seems that with or without religion the majority of us “know” that murder, incest, pedophilia, rape, torture, etc. are wrong and are repulsed by those things. Even though we possess the freedom to commit those acts, something inside of us restrains us from doing so and this restraint seems to be widespread and uniform throughout the world with few exceptions -and to me this points to the existence of objective morality. But the fact that some people, or even groups of people, may do those things anyway, whether or not they believe them to be wrong, while the vast majority are restrained from doing them, is evidence of the existence of a disorder or a breech in the “system” of our objective morality. It seems that we should wonder why we can be uncertain or challenged at all as to the morality of an action-why Freud, say, might argue that strictures against incest are merely societal taboos and why we would even consider the option that he could be right unless there’s something missing or disordered within us to begin with. And I believe that “something missing” is God, whose authority Adam & Eve rejected, and whose authority the Church points us back to.

 

[cpayne]

Of course it is relevant. The title of the thread is Supreme Being and Morality. All laws have a lawgiver. The law of gravity has a lawgiver, and so do the moral laws whether written in the bible or written in our hearts. That Lawgiver is obviously God.

Well, but---- The question in the OP was whether or not people could know right and wrong, evidently with or without belief in God. The answer to that question seems clearly to be yes.

The next question (a separate question) would be whether or not moral knowledge has the character of moral LAW without a Lawgiver “to whom it belongs to inflict penalties” (Aquinas). Aquinas would agree with you on this question, that the answer is no. A moral rule requires the element of an authoritative lawgiver to make it into an actually binding law. People could have knowledge of these moral rules (and do) without necessarily feeling the duty to obey them.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

That could well be a correct belief. I would be of the opinion that that is part of the Spirit that we all contain, an innate understanding of right and wrong. still it is not a thing that can be proven and you cannot define it out of possibility by claiming that a lawgiver is required. The behavior remains the same regardless.Your argument, while I personally adhere to it, is circular.

Man certainly can determine that certain behaviors enhance or detract from ultimate survival of the species, planet, etc. These aer just as much morally right as any perceived to come only from God.

You’re giving pragmatism as evidence for man’s inherent sense of morality, though. Recognizing that murder is destructive is a completely different thing from recognizing that it is wrong.

A lawgiver is required; how else can this “spirit” of which you speak make any difference?

Man only comes to know the truth insofar as it is revealed to us. If we discover the truth through reason, it is because that is how we were meant to discover it – NOT because we just have that ability.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Jimdandy]

Is it possible to know what is right and what is wrong if there is no God?

No. No and No.

Without God, there would not BE anything.

Can one have morals if one does not believe in God?
Sure can because the seed is there when one’s soul is infused at conception.

 

[BlaineTog]

Of course it is relevant. The title of the thread is Supreme Being and Morality. All laws have a lawgiver. The law of gravity has a lawgiver, and so do the moral laws whether written in the bible or written in our hearts. That Lawgiver is obviously God.

The thread is about whether or not we can know the laws. You don’t need to know which city councilor pushed to have all speed limits in the town dropped by 5 feet to read the speed signs.

 

[ricmat]

The thread is about whether or not we can know the laws. You don’t need to know which city councilor pushed to have all speed limits in the town dropped by 5 feet to read the speed signs.

Yes, but you DO need to know that it is an actual authority that posted the signs.

if it’s just some practical joker who put up signs that say “Speed Limit 225” then obviously the law really isn’t a law, even if that’s what you read on the sign.

I’ve already said that natural law is in everybody’s heart, so in theory they CAN know moral laws. However, if they don’t believe that there is an authority behind those laws, then they don’t actually know that the law is a law. It could just be their opinion.

 

[fhansen]

Is it possible to know what is right and what is wrong if there is no God?

Atheists argue that Buddhists still have the sense of morality even they do not have the concept of a god.

No, because if there’s no God, there’d be no “sense of morality”. And there’s an absolute difference between a Buddhists’ not conceiving of God and that of God not existing at all. Because there’s a God we all have a sense of morality-atheists, Buddhists, & Christians alike.

 

[BlaineTog]

However, if they don’t believe that there is an authority behind those laws, then they don’t actually know that the law is a law. It could just be their opinion.

Sure. But that’s not relevant to the thread. Everyone has a sense of what’s right and what’s wrong. Not everyone has a particular reason for following that sense, but that doesn’t mean the sense isn’t there.

No, because if there’s no God, there’d be no “sense of morality”.

I don’t think that follows at all. “Morality” could follow from a sense of pragmatism. There’s not necessarily a logical link between what pragmatically keeps a community alive and what they should do because that’s what right, or at least it’s a jump that can’t be made with mere logic, but that doesn’t mean such a jump isn’t selected for by nature.

 

[SpiritMeadow]

You’re giving pragmatism as evidence for man’s inherent sense of morality, though. Recognizing that murder is destructive is a completely different thing from recognizing that it is wrong.

A lawgiver is required; how else can this “spirit” of which you speak make any difference?

Man only comes to know the truth insofar as it is revealed to us. If we discover the truth through reason, it is because that is how we were meant to discover it – NOT because we just have that ability.

Peace,
Dante

It just seems like splitting hairs and calling it by a different name. I tend to agree with your conclusions, although they are not proveable and certainly any atheist would say otherwise and you cannot disprove him either. To say I won’;t do something because I find it distructive rather than “wrong” is not much of a difference. It’s just another word for the same conclusion.

 

[MindOverMatter]

It just seems like splitting hairs and calling it by a different name. I tend to agree with your conclusions, although they are not proveable and certainly any atheist would say otherwise and you cannot disprove him either. To say I won’;t do something because I find it distructive rather than “wrong” is not much of a difference. It’s just another word for the same conclusion.

You seem to think that right and wrong is just about feelings rather then reason. Its true that are feelings can give us some insight, but our feelings can also decieve us. I might feel it is good to beat people up that call me names, where as you might feel that it is wrong. Are perspective, and the way that we are brought up, can greatly affect the way we feel. However, if there is a trancendetal basis that we can reason from, then there is a universal standard. If the purpose of life is to love your enemies, and your neighbor, then it would be wrong for me to beat people up, just because they called me a name.

If I kill somebody to gain wealth, it is wrong, because the purpose of life is to love; it is objectively true, not just a subjective feeling. If there is no purpose to life, then we cannot trully speak of a right or wrong, because there is no objective measure to our actions. We are just making it up according to how we feel. It is a lie, not a truth about objective reality. Inevitably we are doomed into relativism.

How can i know that killing somebody is “wrong” if such a thing as wrong does not exist. You are only describing how you feel; you are not describing objective morality. Instead you are adding something to reality thats not real, and demanding that everybody else feel the same way as you do.

If i put my hand in the fire, and then it burns me, this does not mean that i “ought not to put my hand in the fire”. I might “desire” not to put my hand in the fire, but true morality is not about desire. Morality is not just advise about what we must do to avoid suffering. Ultimate Reality has to be opposed to an act by its very nature of being, inorder for any of my actions to be judged by it.
In otherwords, it might not be a good idea to burn myself if i don’t personally want to be burned; but it would not be objectively “wrong” to burn myself or others.

There is a clear difference between what we desire and what is wrong. Even if the two compliment eachother in truth, it is only by coincidence; and not because pain gives us the truth about life.