Is a God Needed for Morality?

[lamont]

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.

And you are a prime example of the Christians that I can't stand.

Cheers.

 

[agilis]

I've always liked Hatuey's take on this issue. He was a Taino/Arawak leader who fought the Spanish as they invaded the Caribbean. The Arawaks were not particularly religious. They had a few low-key household Gods, but the Arawak's extreme kindness, generosity, and gentle behavior, frequently mentioned by contemporary observers, was essentially culturally driven. The few simple Gods they had really played almost no role in their lives, and were seen mostly as intercessors, helping to improve the fishing, or ease a difficult childbirth. Arawak/Taino Gods did not prescribe a moral code. I've read that the Arawaks were more involved with their ubiquitous pet parrots than with religion. Their amazingly good nature and non-violence moved Columbus to report that they could be easily conquered and turned into slaves.

Hatuey led a fierce resistance after the Spanish began mass murders and extermination. This is not an exaggeration. The Arawak were almost gone within a century. As an example, it's now estimated that there were about 400,000 in Cuba in 1492. Fewer than 200 remained by the end of the 15th Century. Diseases took many, but so did starvation and deliberate genocide. They are all gone now, along with most of their parrots; extinct, or nearly so.

Hatuey was eventually captured in Cuba in 1511, and burned at the stake. He was offered the opportunity to be baptised and become a Christian just before the Spanish killed him. They explained he would go to heaven. He asked if there were many Christians there. When assured that there were, he declined baptism, explaining that he did not want to be anywhere near Christians.

I think Hatuey had it right. Historically, religion seems to have been used more to justify evil behavior than to change it. The most moral and truly ethical people I have encountered in my life have almost all been agnostics or atheists. I once lived in an extremely fundamentalist Christian community, and was astonished by the low ethical standards that prevailed behind the pious hypocrisy. People who act ethically mainly because they fear that God will punish them if they do not are not to be trusted.
Look at what happened to the Taino/ Arawaks. Read the Old Testament's story of Joshua, and the extermination of Jericho's entire population. Read contemporary headlines.

 

[Soggy]

People who act ethically mainly because they fear that God will punish them if they do not are not to be trusted.

Truer words have never been 'spoken' and this has been my belief for quite some time. I live a moral life because I am able to discern right and wrong without the need to be told by a higher authority. I am suspicious of those that cannot do the same.

 

[JessH]

How do you feel about "disorganized" religion

I am all for the free exchange of ideas

~Jess

 

[TSandM]

Sheri Tepper, a very talented science fiction writer, has a series of three books (Grass, Raising the Stones, and Sideshow) which have as their theme the role of religion in human societies. She has some powerful things to say, and the books are very thought-provoking.

My personal feeling is that each of us has the responsibility to examine his own ethical and moral beliefs and evaluate them and be sure they are what he wants, and then to live in concert with them. Accepting a belief system because it is presented to you is a way of not taking responsibility. Believing that something is true and valid because somebody tells you that God said amazes me. Too many things which I think we would all agree are reprehensible have been done under that justification. The Inquisition comes to mind, but I think the most struck by this I have ever been was visiting the Voortrekker Memorial in South Africa. That building was one of the most daunting and accusatory things I have ever seen. But those people were pious to an extreme.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

Truer words have never been 'spoken' and this has been my belief for quite some time. I live a moral life because I am able to discern right and wrong without the need to be told by a higher authority. I am suspicious of those that cannot do the same.

And from where did you gather that knowledge? Was it internal or taught to you?
Keep in mind that ideas of right and wrong can vary culturally; there are cultures in which treachery and murder (from our standards) was much admired. There is an existing culture that believes certain persons are untouchable and pretty much lower than dirt. Others still openly practice slavery. Would you say those behaviors are wrong? If so, why? It's their culture. What moral standard would you use for determining right and wrong? Obviously culture should not be the standard.

 

[Thalassamania]

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

Actually it is a perfect example, but not in the way that you think. Enron is no more, it did not get access to the gene pool of succeding generations because it stripped it's enviornment and became extinct.

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.

Have you any data (besides bronze age mythology) to support the idea that man is anything other than an animal?

 

[MSilvia]

Others still openly practice slavery. Would you say those behaviors are wrong? Obviously culture should not be the standard.

To some, it is just as obvious that the bible doesn't have the market on dictating moral behavior cornered either.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever.

 

[Thalassamania]

TIME: Dr. Collins, you have described humanity's moral sense not only as a gift from God but as a signpost that he exists.

COLLINS: There is a whole field of inquiry that has come up in the last 30 or 40 years--some call it sociobiology or evolutionary psychology--relating to where we get our moral sense and why we value the idea of altruism, and locating both answers in behavioral adaptations for the preservation of our genes. But if you believe, and Richard (Dawkins) has been articulate in this, that natural selection operates on the individual, not on a group, then why would the individual risk his own DNA doing something selfless to help somebody in a way that might diminish his chance of reproducing? Granted, we may try to help our own family members because they share our DNA. Or help someone else in expectation that they will help us later. But when you look at what we admire as the most generous manifestations of altruism, they are not based on kin selection or reciprocity. An extreme example might be Oskar Schindler risking his life to save more than a thousand Jews from the gas chambers. That's the opposite of saving his genes. We see less dramatic versions every day. Many of us think these qualities may come from God--especially since justice and morality are two of the attributes we most readily identify with God.

DAWKINS: Can I begin with an analogy? Most people understand that sexual lust has to do with propagating genes. Copulation in nature tends to lead to reproduction and so to more genetic copies. But in modern society, most copulations involve contraception, designed precisely to avoid reproduction. Altruism probably has origins like those of lust. In our prehistoric past, we would have lived in extended families, surrounded by kin whose interests we might have wanted to promote because they shared our genes. Now we live in big cities. We are not among kin nor people who will ever reciprocate our good deeds. It doesn't matter. Just as people engaged in sex with contraception are not aware of being motivated by a drive to have babies, it doesn't cross our mind that the reason for do-gooding is based in the fact that our primitive ancestors lived in small groups. But that seems to me to be a highly plausible account for where the desire for morality, the desire for goodness, comes from.

 

[JessH]

No one told me about the female slave thing. Maybe being a Christian wouldn't be so bad after all.....

~Jess