Is a God Needed for Morality?

Please register or login

Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.

Benefits of registering include

  • Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
  • A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
  • You can make this box go away

Joining is quick and easy. Log in or Register now!

MikeFerrara, the quote posted by Thalassamania is an abbreviated summary of the Epicurean paradox, and the summary conclusion in that post "Therefore it follows..." is not from Epicurus himself. Epicurus was one of the three or four most influential of the ancient Hellenic philosophers. His Paradox was presented more like a mathematical proof, not as a general statement, and it's called a paradox because it leads to no clear conclusion. Epicurus himself thought speculating about God was a useless exersize, because it was manifestly obvious (it still is) that the human intellect was unable to determine the attributes of the Gods, beyond the obvious logical requirements that if there are any Gods, they must be immortal and they must be good. He certainly did not believe in life after death, and his philosophy of life was centered around seeking the greatest pleasure and avoiding pain to the greatest extent possible, both individually and for all persons collectively. He saw the greatest pleasures as intellectual. He influenced 18th century Naturalists, 19th century Pragmatists, and even Karl Marx.

He was unconcerned with the question of God's existence, seeing it a irrelevant and, ultimately, unresolvable. I think he would have laughed at people who picked up magic books to look for answers to subtle and complex questions. 'Let's see, it says here that I must not think this and that I should avoid that", etc. This is an infantile and truly primitive way to approach life. It can also be quite dangerous. Just as liberty requires constant vigilance, and democracy a continuing engagement in the process, effective ethics and morality must be developed and cultivated individually, through education and an inner process of reflection, not received as a package from some external source.
 
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.
Sophomoric in what way?
 
MSilvia:
Sophomoric in what way?
Not the conclusion, the path to it. Sophmoric in the way that it usually happens arround one's second year in university.<G>
 
Thalassamania:
Not the conclusion, the path to it. Sophmoric in the way that it usually happens arround one's second year in university.<G>

I was wondering about that also. I see your point now.
 
agilis:
'Let's see, it says here that I must not think this and that I should avoid that", etc. This is an infantile and truly primitive way to approach life. It can also be quite dangerous. Just as liberty requires constant vigilance, and democracy a continuing engagement in the process, effective ethics and morality must be developed and cultivated individually, through education and an inner process of reflection, not received as a package from some external source.
IMHO that is the best and clearest statement in the last 300 posts. I could easily just leave it at that.
 
agilis:
MikeFerrara, the quote posted by Thalassamania is an abbreviated summary of the Epicurean paradox, and the summary conclusion in that post "Therefore it follows..." is not from Epicurus himself. Epicurus was one of the three or four most influential of the ancient Hellenic philosophers. His Paradox was presented more like a mathematical proof, not as a general statement, and it's called a paradox because it leads to no clear conclusion. Epicurus himself thought speculating about God was a useless exersize, because it was manifestly obvious (it still is) that the human intellect was unable to determine the attributes of the Gods, beyond the obvious logical requirements that if there are any Gods, they must be immortal and they must be good. He certainly did not believe in life after death, and his philosophy of life was centered around seeking the greatest pleasure and avoiding pain to the greatest extent possible, both individually and for all persons collectively. He saw the greatest pleasures as intellectual. He influenced 18th century Naturalists, 19th century Pragmatists, and even Karl Marx.

He was unconcerned with the question of God's existence, seeing it a irrelevant and, ultimately, unresolvable. I think he would have laughed at people who picked up magic books to look for answers to subtle and complex questions. 'Let's see, it says here that I must not think this and that I should avoid that", etc. This is an infantile and truly primitive way to approach life. It can also be quite dangerous. Just as liberty requires constant vigilance, and democracy a continuing engagement in the process, effective ethics and morality must be developed and cultivated individually, through education and an inner process of reflection, not received as a package from some external source.

Isn't that what Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, Amin, Hussein, "The Dear Leader" and "The Great Leader", Mao, et. al. did to develop their effective ethics and morality? They did what they thought was right after a period of reflection.
 
Green_Manelishi:
They did what they thought was right after a period of reflection.

power corrupts

consider the atroticites committed by Christian Popes and Kings ... not to mention Prime MInisters and Presidents
 
What percentage of convicted murderers, rapists, etc claim to be Christian?? What percentage claim to be atheist/agnostic?

Hmmm....
 
Hemlon:
What percentage of convicted murderers, rapists, etc claim to be Christian?? What percentage claim to be atheist/agnostic?

Hmmm....

Again with the Christians vs aethiests! You can't narrow down this discussion to just those two!

Ask the question as how many are believers in God and how many aren't. You do know that Muslims also believe in God, right? Whether or not you believe they are moral is not the question. They believe they are. So, can a person still be moral and not believe in God?

Sorry, this narrowing of the scope bothers me!
 

Back
Top Bottom