Is a God Needed for Morality?

[sea nmf]

I believe the converse is also true... religion can exist without diety.

Agreed. Most, however, have a diety or an inspired (enlightened) figurehead that is the basis of religion.

 

[MSilvia]

Most, but not all. Taoism for example is arguably a religion, or is at the very least a philosophical model for how to lead a harmonious life, and it doesn't have such a figurehead aside from "the master", who is more of a generic example of a person who is following the Way.

Of course, the Tao and God/gods may have more than a little bit in common. The biggest difference I see lies in the anthropomorphic nature of most deities. Taoism (as I understand it) is content to acknowledge the path without attributing it to the desires or actions of any entity, or otherwise attempting to explain it. In fact it is quite specific in saying that any explaination that can be voiced is inherently inadequate.

 

[Green_Manelishi]

we've got the Crusades, the Inquisition, etc as examples of what can happen on the other hand which are just as valid as the examples that you give.

Ah yes, The Crusades and The Inquisition.

To which "Crusades" do you refer? Do you have any realistic concept of The Crusades and the Inquisition or are you simply an embracer of the anti-catholic mantra?

Were your "valid examples" the culture or an event?

 

[MSilvia]

Were your "valid examples" the culture or an event?

I don't think it's particularly relevant to the question either way. That God or religion can be used as a rationale for atrocity does not mean that He/it cannot also inspire moral behavior.

The question is not "Does religion unwaveringly cause moral behavior?", but rather "Can moral behavior exist without divinity?"

 

[Thalassamania]

Ah, now we get into the two-headed god and "can immorality exist without morality?" all of which leads down a rather sophmoric path to ying and yang and ballance in everything.

 

[adurso]

Morality is contextual within specific cultures. For an anthropophage bashing the tribe next door about the head and roasting the liver of the vanquished to absorb the animus is all well and good, the same practice in a New Jersey suburb is not.

People learn "moral" behavior from their kin group, oftimes this is not family.

Is stealing wrong? Or is only wrong if you get caught?

Anecdotally I am seeing, and hearing, more of the "it is only wrong if you get caught"; the kin group has determined that it is morally acceptable to steal from outsiders...

Many of those who espouse such a grey morality think of themselves as "religious" people who believe in a supreme deity. When confronted with the disparity between their alleged religious beliefs and their actions and asked to justify their behavior they default to anger...coping skills seem to be in short supply as well...

 

[JessH]

To which "Crusades" do you refer? Do you have any realistic concept of The Crusades and the Inquisition or are you simply an embracer of the anti-catholic mantra?

I think he was refering to the crusades that were "conducted in the name of Christendom and usually sanctioned by the Pope." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades I don't think the fact that there was more than one crusade does anything to hurt his argument....

~Jess

 

[agilis]

Lots of people here in the New Jersey suburbs consume the livers of those they vanquish, roasted or not. This happens often when traffic on the Garden State Parkway gets badly jammed up. I've seen people dragged from their SUVs and dismembered after forcing other drivers off the road while chatting on a cell phone. I'd never want to absorb the persona of such solipsistic dolts, so I leave their livers strictly alone. Not everyone is as discriminating, probably accounting for the proliferation of SUV owners.

Thalassamania, Epicurus had some interesting insights about the duality of good and evil, the relative dependence of one upon the other, and the consequent nature of any presumptive deity, in the context of what's called the 'Epicurean Paradox'.

 

[Thalassamania]

You mean:

God either wants to eliminate bad things and cannot, or can but does not want to, or neither wishes to nor can, or both wants to and can. If he wants to and cannot, he is weak -- and this does not apply to god. If he can but does not want to, then he is spiteful -- which is equally foreign to god's nature. If he neither wants to nor can, he is both weak and spiteful and so not a god. If he wants to and can, which is the only thing fitting for a god, where then do bad things come from? Or why does he not eliminate them?

Therefore it follows that no god exists.

 

[lamont]

Ah yes, The Crusades and The Inquisition.

To which "Crusades" do you refer? Do you have any realistic concept of The Crusades and the Inquisition or are you simply an embracer of the anti-catholic mantra?

Were your "valid examples" the culture or an event?

Let me try to explain this more bluntly without any subtlety.

You are holding up the Sawi Indians of New Guinea and the Acua Indians of South America as the standard of "what happens when God is eliminated from the public forum".

That is precisely as legitimate as considering the Crusades and the Inquisition to be the standard of what happens when Catholics/Christians/Organized Religion dominates the views of a society.

And my point is that neither are legitimate.

And you've also got a further problem with:

With no objective basis for right and wrong, each does what seems right in their own eyes.

Which is that religion is highly subjective, and each individual picks his or her own belief system, so religion offers no objective basis for right and wrong.