Can Morality Exist Without God?

It's Damn Real!

The undisputed, undefeated TNA &
Before I even set foot with this proposition, please understand my intentions here are not to prove nor to disprove the existence of God, nor are they to condemn the actions, evidence or existence of religion, though that's not to say that through the course of my argument, that may in fact be done, nor is it to say a number of you won't take it that way regardless. Rather, the purpose of this thread is simple – to strike a debate based upon the theoretical question of whether or nor [human] morality can exist without God or not.

Most [mono]theists (I would think) would decree that without God and without the bible – the infallible and passed down word of God – morality as we know it would not exist. I also believe most would contend that without the moralities set forth by the bible and by God, that the human race would be doomed to anarchy, unruliness and primordial and animalistic behaviors and actions. Some of these people believe that without a supervising celestial father-of-all type, humanity would be wolves to one another, and that it is because of that celestial father-of-all that we are not. I whole-heartedly disagree, and I think there is an enormous amount of evidence to the contrary.

Morality, I would affirm, is innate in us – altruism, if you will – and solidarity in part of our self-interset in society as well as our own individual interests. Is it any wonder that more often than not when you see good person acting wickedly that it's because they're under some type of divine "order" to do so? After all, the very same bible theists contend is our moral basis, is the same book that decrees it's believers kill homosexuals, keep slaves and retain women as lesser beings than men, no? Steven Weinberg in the Freethought Today from April of 2000 put it better than I could when he said "Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."

Take for example the Jihadists of Islam – who would give them the idea that blowing themselves up outside an orphanage is an act of morality but the religion they follow? A mother who drowns her child, for example, but does so because "God" told her to is a lunatic in the minds of most people (who think logically), no? What moral influence would have had her do so if not for her religion? Or better yet, what free-thinking human being bears witness to the birth of a beautiful baby girl and thinks to themselves, "Well, taking morality into account, it's necessary for me to remove her clitoris at an early age so she never experiences sexual climax, and as a result is less inclined to be promiscuous" other than their religion that decrees it, that is?

Charles Hitchens put it perfectly when he said "Those who think that there is any connection between ethics and religion have all their work ahead of them."

Not only do I disagree that morality is a derivative of God or the bible, but I would contend that if in fact it were, it would be an abomination that free-thinking and logical humans everywhere should seek to expunge from their future at all cost if they actually expected to live long and prosper into that future free of the superstitious and tribal barbarisms and Bronze-age ethics set forth by the bible. Those, I would allege are the very last thing a 21st century culture based on social equality and freedom of choice should ever base it's moral compass by.

Thoughts on all of this? Can morality exist without God?
 
Great question, IDR... but on to the answer. Well, yeah it can exist without God. You say that God passed down the word that is in The Bible, when The Bible in fact could have been written by any average human... there is NO PROOF that it is the actual word of God. I'm not saying I don't believe in God, I'm just saying that the scientific proof doesn't exist. The Jihadists are pretty blind to what morality is and they'll twist anything in any way so that they can look innocent, so that argument is pretty null and void. The Bible doesn't exactly impact humans in the way we act, and what we think is right or wrong, it is all up to individuals. Morality is really something that has been created society all throughout the ages so that the world isn't all up in shambles and so that there is a way of life for all humans. Morality is really different to every man, and every man controls his own opinions and how he behaves. The Bible has been used to describe many things, but I don't think that morality is one of those things. I don't read The Bible, but I still have morals and I'm still a proactive member of society.
 
I think you sort of answered your own question, IDR.

Morality existed long before monotheism and and even before polytheism. Has religion helped guilt become more prominent? Yes, because believers have a possible punishment that goes beyond the mortal life

It is also worth noting that many gods were not exactly great moral compasses to follow. Look at the Olympian Gods - murder, rape, adultery and general mistreatment of their elders (Titans), each other and their inferiors.
 
Yes, it can. Shit, ethics is probably the biggest sub-discipline in philosophy. Also, this question was pretty much already resolved by Plato in his dialogue, Euthyphro. I suggest you check that short read out if you haven't already.
 
Wel, I personally don't believe in God. I'm not saying there isn't a higher power, but I dont buy into Christianity. I consider myself to have good morals, I try to do what I feel is right. I don't base my actions on what Christians believe is right or wrong.
 
Objective Morality cannot exist without God.

Morality, I would affirm, is innate in us – altruism, if you will – and solidarity in part of our self-interset in society as well as our own individual interests.

Why do you affirm such a belief? What explains why an individual would take a bullet for another individual? Why do people care about children who are born with severe defects making them nothing more than a burden to society? We help others even when neither we nor society in general is better off.

I'd also point out that Christians believe that God gave us a conscious so that we would distinguish between right and wrong. So arguing that its innate doesn't prove it didn't come from God.

Is it any wonder that more often than not when you see good person acting wickedly that it's because they're under some type of divine "order" to do so?

I don't know any "good" people who act wickedly, that would make them bad. But even if I disregard that, how do you make the judgment that someone acted "wickedly?" What is bad to you might be good for them? If you can't point to some objective source of morality, then its just your opinion against theirs.

I don't read The Bible, but I still have morals and I'm still a proactive member of society.

I consider myself to have good morals, I try to do what I feel is right. I don't base my actions on what Christians believe is right or wrong.

Like I said before, what are you comparing yourself to? Morals are not tangent things you can point to. You saying I have morals has the same weight as Hitler saying I have morals.

I'm actually surprised so many of you guys make this argument. Most people who don't believe in God are content with the idea that they don't have an objective source of morality they can point to.

From http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/236-objective-morality-does-it-exist/

Morality derives from values. What kind of society is best? What is the good life? While it is certainly true that one may extract certain values from evolutionary biology, such as cooperation and self-preservation, I can see no absolutely convincing, objective justification for adopting these values as opposed to, say, valuing Adlerian will-to-power. These evolutionarily selected 'virtues’ arise from material conditions rather than intent or desire, and that makes them objective.

So there is a sort of objective morality, but there is no objective justification for adopting it!

The lack of a self-evident morality is indeed a problem for atheists. But if we’re right, and there is no god, then it’s not just a problem for us but for everyone.

You might have a source for morality, but you have no basis to make your source any better than anyone else's.

Aldous Huxley said:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently (I) assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves....For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political.

So Huxley is basically saying, I don't want there to be a God to give this life meaning so that I could go on living my life the way I want to.
 
Morailty is a human emotion.

God does not have to be apart of Morality, it's a decision process, sometimes Morality contains thought so If are decision are based on our own thoughts than how can morality be religion based?.

Granted most of our guidlines on how to be good are taken from religion but our own moral compass directs our actions.

and as human beings we know the difference between right and wrong, good and bad.

If we think and feel that something is right than its morally objectifying.

Religion does not come into that, human emotions and thoughts do.
 
I think it can. Morality is just common sense to me:

- I wouldn't want someone to steal something from me, so what would mean if I was stealing things? (Thou shall not steal)

- I wouldn't want to go through a family member being killed, so why would I want someone else to go through with it? (Thou shall not kill)

- I never talked back to my mom because I didn't want to get slapped aside the head. (Thou shall not disrespect parents)
 
The complete lack of morality or ethics or being unable to distinguish right from wrong are mental disorders like psychopathy and sociopathy so it must be expected by medical norms that we as a species have a moral compass.
 
Objective Morality cannot exist without God.

Then how can it exist with him? How can you certifiably prove that "God" is the reason for your morality?

Why do you affirm such a belief? What explains why an individual would take a bullet for another individual? Why do people care about children who are born with severe defects making them nothing more than a burden to society? We help others even when neither we nor society in general is better off.

Altruism. The answer to all of that is altruism. That is, selfless concern for the welfare of others, period. All of which stems from cultural and societal influences that teach you to care for others the way you would care for yourself. A mother, for example, will give her life for her child – no questions asked. That's not mandated by God, so how is she morally obligated (by choice) to do so if it's not decreed she must? Altruism. The same holds true for every one of your examples.

I'd also point out that Christians believe that God gave us a conscious so that we would distinguish between right and wrong. So arguing that its innate doesn't prove it didn't come from God

I believe you meant to say that God gave us a conscience as opposed to conscious – conscious would be the state of being aware, conscience being that "internal voice of reason".

Arguing that it's innate doesn't need to prove that it didn't come from God, all it needs to prove is that it's capable to exist without him. He very well may have been the author of it, but in doing so he also bears the burden of proof, of which you have none as he, nor any of his followers can prove his existence. I could just as logically say that a pink unicorn in the sky is the provider for morality and base it on just as much factual evidence (or lack there of) as proof of it's existence.

I don't know any "good" people who act wickedly, that would make them bad. But even if I disregard that, how do you make the judgment that someone acted "wickedly?" What is bad to you might be good for them? If you can't point to some objective source of morality, then its just your opinion against theirs.

Sure you do, because it's relative. Some view George Bush as a good Christian who acted wickedly when he started a war under false pretenses.

The objective source is societal consensus. If 90% of people agree murder is wrong, in that society, murder is wrong. If 90% of the people on earth agree, then murder is wrong.
 
Not a tough question at all. Of course it can. It has and it will. That in itself is all the evidence needed.
Though you provide examples of immoral acts done in the name of God/religion, I think the more pertinent question is without "fear" (of afterlife persecution or nihilistic inconsequence) as a motivator is there any reason/motivation for humanity to do good?
For me personally doing good works assuages my conscience, and makes me feel good --selfish as those reasons may be. Along the same lines I like to hedge my bets and build up moral capital just in case the afterlife exists. Nothing to lose everything to gain --a Pascal's Wager of sorts.
If you've no ability to even attempt faith then perhaps be moral for the sake of life after death. Not yours of course but rather everyone else that must toil on in your absence. Live you life in a way that leaves the world better than you've found it for all others to enjoy all the more once you're gone.
 
The objective source is societal consensus. If 90% of people agree murder is wrong, in that society, murder is wrong. If 90% of the people on earth agree, then murder is wrong.

If morality comes from popular opinion, then it is not objective. Objective morality means that something is immoral no matter the society or time in history. If 99% of people on Earth thought it was okay to rape babies, it still wouldn't make it right.

Under that logic, what right do we have to condemn the actions of China and their one baby policy, or the middle east and their abuse of women? Every society can determine for itself what is right and wrong then.
 
The Selfish gene is a biological case in our DNA where we are designated to look out for our own self interest. It however, causes us to do things that many would deem unselfish, such as sharing, generosity, ect. These behaviors can lead to eventual reward which is why many of us do charitable things. Whether it is for repuatation, trying to feel good about yourself, or the afterlife- The selfish gene is always in play. Even the nuts of 9/11 were effected by this gene. When societies develop the selfish gene has to take to the more charitable cases of likely reward, because survival in groups is more efficient. Pirhanas don't kill each other over food- even in frenzy. Is it there morality? No- there brains are small, and don't have a sense of right and wrong, but the selfish gene is there, and even in there own society it distinguishes what would be beneficial.

Ofcourse, the selfish gene doesn't have a complete control over you. It can be overwritten, so to speak. I believe someone on page one mentioned "taking a bullet" for someone. Well, that's simply what you do if you love someone enough to do it. Even if your instincts protest against it. This doesn't conclude that God is the creator of love. Love develops as a way to protect someone who satisfys all or most of your personal needs. When it kicks into overdrive, it throws the selfish gene out the window.

So my answer is inevitably: Ofcourse.--- Which God created it anyway? There are a shit load of them nowadays. I'd like to know which one claims the title of Selfish Gene Maker.
As Bill Nye the Science Guy once said: Science Rules!
If I didn't cover something, please let me know.
 
Morality does not require God. I understand the point that the promise of heaven may cause certain people to act "morally", but the question you should have asked, and the one I will respond to, is "Are people inherently good or are they inherently bad?".

I believe people are inherently good. The most moral tenet of all is The Golden Rule. That has nothing to do with God. There is no promise of Heaven in that statement. The Rule is inherently selfish. Treat others the way you would like to be treated. To co-exist and be comfortable, be nice. That is common sense.

The downfall of man is not a natural evil that exists within us. It is ambition. Some people are intent on a different moral standard and their ambition drives them, and their followers to abuse other human's moral nature.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,827
Messages
3,300,735
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top