Is a God Needed for Morality?

[Soggy]

the philosophical believe that *all* athiests are immoral and selfish, though, and god has the corner on morality is what i object to...

All acts are selfish in the end. Even 'selfless' acts are done because it pleases or satisfies us as individuals.

 

[Kim]

It appears that some of the more angelic MODS couldn't stand the heat (Too close to hell? Not going their way?) and pulled the plug.

I doubt that there is anything wrong with your reading comprehension so please re-read #post 95....carefully...

if you don't remember what Arnold said...let me know!

 

[CBulla]

can there be moral lives without God in them?

So, Andy.. may I have the pleasure to introduce to you The Toletec Teachings by don Miguel and don Jose Luis Ruiz. I believe you would really enjoy the thoughts and ideas which the readings bring to light.

 

[MikeFerrara]

I personaly don't feel that modern Christianity does much to help this. By nature humans are "good" and "moral". Many things can happen in someones life that cause people to ignore or alter there morals, but when it comes down to it even the cruelest most evil people come up with ways to justify their actions to themselves. To me this says that by default they have some sort of morals. Over time they may become warped or even ignored but there was morality there.

I disagree here. Of course, it's hard to discuss without defining "good" or "moral" but I don't believe people are good by nature. I don't think either history or observation would lead anyone to believe that either.

My problem with many religions is that I don't believe "because I said so," "because I am your mother," or "because god said so" are arguments that actually do much to reinforce sound morals. They may teach people to not break the rules when they think someone is watching, but as you said when they think they can get away with it all bets are off. Now if instead of a set of rules that can be bent and broken you instill a sense of identification and commonality with fellow man then you will end up with a much stronger moral base. I don't feel that this requires religion, but some sense of spirituality may be useful.

I guess here you have to state which religions you think do that. The Bible is crammed full of detailed examples of what happens when things are done "wrong" and what happens when they are done "right". It does teach the "why". It also teaches that you can't get away with anything because God sees it all. Not only does God see it but "sin" causes more immediate problems and usually creates the need or desire for more "sin". It's a slippery slope so-to-speak and all of it causes seperation from God. On the other hand, when we have a strictly human equations you can get away with things pretty easy. People can do what they want when no one is looking and they will certainly do things that they normally wouldn't do when those who know them aren't looking.

"because I said so" is never a reason. Who someone is may establish their authority but doesn't give reason for anything and doesn't teach. A father or mother has authority over their young children just because they are the parents. A police officer has authority just because he is the police. If a parent wants to teach a child, they'll have to eventually add more to the lesson. With the police, it's strictly enforcement and they have no need to teach anything.

I have known a good number of people who did not believe in religion and had zero respect for the legal system. Despite not abiding by these traditional moral codes they did have their own set of morality, and some of them are the kindest, most caring and sharing individuals I have ever known.

~Jess

I too have been exposed to individuals or small groups who had their own "code". I think it's a good example of what can happen with insufficient input from a stable outside source. With society, it's all relative but changes are usually fairly slow and the "average" tends to limit the extremes. With small groups or individuals you can get huge changes in "the code" over a very short time with no limits at all on the the extremes. The group can be made up entirely of one extreme. In a single evening a couple of guys, over a bottle of Jack, can develop a whole new moral code that they will apply in terrorizing the neighborhood starting the very next evening. They can even be convinced thay they are just and moral in their actions under that code. In fact it probably makes a good limit case for examining what can happen with society given enough time.

 

[MikeFerrara]

I personaly don't feel that modern Christianity does much to help this.
~Jess

I forgot to address the "modern" part.

Much of "modern Christianity" has turned to focusing on what the practicioners want...being a good Christian will make you happier, you'll have more money...you'll have this that or the other. You see this in many of the "Seeker Sensitive" type movements. They turn to focusing on the "me" in order to attract people. I think in lots of ways it mirrors modern society where, there too, the "me" seems to become more important all the time.

 

[Thalassamania]

I doubt that there is anything wrong with your reading comprehension so please re-read #post 95....carefully...

if you don't remember what Arnold said...let me know!

It appears that my original assumption was incorrect and I apologize to any that I may have distressed.

 

[Potapko]

what i dislike about *some* christians.

if those christians said *some* atheists are immoral and selfish, i wouldn't have as much of an issue with that...

the philosophical believe that *all* athiests are immoral and selfish, though, and god has the corner on morality is what i object to...

An accurate Biblical perspective is that all human beings are immoral and selfish. Atheists have no corner on the market.

Actually every person has morals. The question becomes whose morals are they? Even serial killers have a standard. Even Hitler had standards.

Without an absolute authority whichever set you choose is fine.

Who was it that said, "these are my values, if you don't like them I have others"
Without an absolute standard there is nothing wrong with that perspective.

 

[JessH]

I disagree here. Of course, it's hard to discuss without defining "good" or "moral" but I don't believe people are good by nature. I don't think either history or observation would lead anyone to believe that either.

I personally feel that people are good by nature but are often corrupted by society. It may be splitting hairs though, since if our society corrupts then immorality may end up as the default state.

I guess here you have to state which religions you think do that.

It is not so much the theological basis for the religions themselves but what I feel actually happens in the real world. In my experience most religious people do not base their religious beliefs on their own studies of their religion but instead on what they have been taught by individuals. No matter how well intended the individuals teaching are if the person they are teaching does not make the effort to actually study their religion they will rarely get past the basic rules to the reasons for them. I also feel that when people create a belief system without learning the logic and reason behind it they end up with a far too black and white view of things with many misinterpertations and misaplications of what are actually sound principals.

Combine that with a knowledge of the way that organized religion has historically been used to manipulate people in order to enforce a dominant ideology and you end up with my contempt for organized religion.

The Bible is crammed full of detailed examples of what happens when things are done "wrong" and what happens when they are done "right". It does teach the "why". It also teaches that you can't get away with anything because God sees it all. Not only does God see it but "sin" causes more immediate problems and usually creates the need or desire for more "sin". It's a slippery slope so-to-speak and all of it causes seperation from God. On the other hand, when we have a strictly human equations you can get away with things pretty easy. People can do what they want when no one is looking and they will certainly do things that they normally wouldn't do when those who know them aren't looking.

I just don't feel that a belief in God works that well to keep peoples morals in check. I just havn't personally observed any corelation with religious people being more moral than non religious people. I would sadly have to say that I have observed the opposite.

~Jess

 

[Green_Manelishi]

I personally feel that people are good by nature but are often corrupted by society. It may be splitting hairs though, since if our society corrupts then immorality may end up as the default state.

It is not so much the theological basis for the religions themselves but what I feel actually happens in the real world. In my experience most religious people do not base their religious beliefs on their own studies of their religion but instead on what they have been taught by individuals. No matter how well intended the individuals teaching are if the person they are teaching does not make the effort to actually study their religion they will rarely get past the basic rules to the reasons for them. I also feel that when people create a belief system without learning the logic and reason behind it they end up with a far too black and white view of things with many misinterpertations and misaplications of what are actually sound principals.

Combine that with a knowledge of the way that organized religion has historically been used to manipulate people in order to enforce a dominant ideology and you end up with my contempt for organized religion.

I just don't feel that a belief in God works that well to keep peoples morals in check. I just havn't personally observed any corelation with religious people being more moral than non religious people. I would sadly have to say that I have observed the opposite.
~Jess

How many people do you know that needed to be taught selfishness and "Me, Mine, I"?

Probably none.

People need to be taught to "be good", or at least so fear being punished that they behave.

Take a look at Enron for a perfect example of Darwinian principles in action.

How do you feel about "disorganized" religion

As an aside Darwin's The Descent of Man is ironically and perfectly named. He's not created in the image of God, he's an animal.

 

[TexasZR2]

I'll weigh in a little here with more questions.....

Most religions and societies teach that it is "wrong" to kill somoene. But when is it "right"? Under what circumstances does it become ok to take someone else's life? When they are trying to take yours or someone elses? And if so, wouldn't there be timing involved? If you know someone is going to try to kill you, do you have to wait for them to try, or can you do a preemptive strike and still be in the "right"? Hitler was mentioned above. Would you have been in the "right" to take him out before he committed any of his attrocities if you knew they were coming?

The same can be asked about stealing. Taking something that does not belong to you is taught as being "wrong"? But what if your family is starving and you have no other means to feed them but to take food from a farmer's field? Can this be considered "right" compared to someone that steals my TV to support a crack habit? Does it all boil down to the intention or motive behind the act? The end result is the same.

FYI...I am a life long agnostic who struggles with the question of religion daily. What I don't struggle with is my morality. As long as what I do does not affect someone else, I don't see why any one else should care. I also don't push my beliefs on other people, which is something I can't say about most religions.