Can there be morality without God?

[OldWiseGuy]

I love how these 'moral arguments' are always framed - that we're supposed to take for granted that a moral philosophy derived from 'divine authority' is somehow ontologically and epistemologically robust. It isn't. It's utterly vacuous.

There is no reason to suspect any god exists.

Even if there were a god, there is no reason to suspect he necessarily has moral opinions at all.

Even if there were a god with moral opinions, there is no reason to suspect those moral opinions necessarily pertain to humanity.

Even if there were a god with moral opinions that pertain to humanity, there is no means of reliably gleaning what those opinions are.

So,

In a world where impossible to ascertain divine moral opinions don't exist, we are left having to discover morality on our own.

And,

In a world where impossible to ascertain divine moral opinions do exist, we are left having to discover morality on our own.

They are effectively identical.

But,

Even if there were a god with moral opinions that pertain to humanity and a means of reliably gleaning what those opinions are, there is no reason to necessarily conform to them. Some or all of them could just as easily be morally reprehensible, and we'd have to evaluate each one on its own merits.

So, again,

Even in a world where possible to ascertain divine moral opinions do exist, we are left having to discover morality on our own.

These are just of a few of the many, many problems with the 'moral argument' that theists must overcome before they can even pretend to possess a coherent moral philosophy, let alone any kind of moral high ground above me or any other nonbeliever.

I'm glad these aren't my problems.

Christian morality resides in judgment, mercy, and faith, not a strict code of conduct.

"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone." (Matthew 23:23)

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Without God people are left to decide what is wrong or right. That sounds great to many people because they know what is wrong and right. Oddly, people seldom agree on this. Furthermore, when people gain power over others their view of right and wrong tends to change to right being whatever protects their power or grants them more power. ...

Well, you can't have true morality with God.

If God gives you your morality, then you are nothing but a dog not jumping on the sofa because master said so, without ever understanding why.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Christian morality resides in judgment, mercy, and faith, not a strict code of conduct.

So if God says an act is moral, you don't necessarily agree?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Christian morality resides in judgment, mercy, and faith,

Judgement and mercy require no ontological basis in 'god' or any other supernaturalist non-concept.

'Faith' is worthless to morality, and all human concerns for that matter.

not a strict code of conduct.

In that case, describing any act as a 'sin' or any behavior as 'sinful' is nonsensical.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So if God says an act is moral, you don't necessarily agree?

?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Judgement and mercy require no ontological basis in 'god' or any other supernaturalist non-concept.

'Faith' is worthless to morality, and all human concerns for that matter.

Interesting opinion.

In that case, describing any act as a 'sin' or any behavior as 'sinful' is nonsensical.

If one accepts your premise, which I don't.

 

[Steve Petersen]

This guy thinks it is possible:

The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values: Sam Harris: 9781439171226: Amazon.com: Books

 

[ThinkForYourself]

?

Don't you automatically agree that all of God's actions were moral, even when they are clearly immoral? For example when god commits genocide and endorses slavery and child sacrifice.

For instance: If I see a Christian priest raping a child, I stop the rapist. When your God sees a Christian priest raping a child he says "Carry on, don't forget to ask for forgiveness", and closes the door. Who is acting morally and who is acting immorally?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Interesting opinion.

Which I noticed you have no response to.

If you think mercy and judgement necessitate an ontological basis in 'god', defend your assertion. Otherwise I dismiss it out of hand, immediately and unceremoniously, just as I do with all naked assertions.

If one accepts your premise, which I don't.

What in the blue hell do you think you're talking about?

The premise is yours, remember? You said Christian morality is not about adhering to a code. Do you mean to say you don't accept your own premise? Or do you mean to say it is possible to categorically identify 'sinful' acts and behaviors without having a moral code?

In either case, explain yourself, because you are speaking nonsense.

 

[Inkfingers]

Without God people are left to decide what is wrong or right.

People can come together and decide on a set of rules that define right and wrong; but unless those rules are seen as sacred in their own right, they are just something that each person (whilst valueing the security the rules bring) will try to get around those rule if they can do so without getting caught or undermining the general security those rules provide.

For the rules to carry weight, so that you follow them even if you could break them and benefit without being caught or threatening the security and harmony of society, they have to be seen as sacred. Holy.

And for rules to be sacred they have to be believed in as absolute and not just the codifying of the desires of men in a social contract. They have to be at least as authoritative (and independent of human desire) as the laws of physics and mathematics. Things that are unquestionably true about the nature of the universe itself.

Anything less and they are contrivances built on sand and to be worked around if at all possible so long as you don't get caught and you don't rock the boat in doing so. And thus are not morals.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

...
For the rules to carry weight, so that you follow them even if you could break them and benefit without being caught or threatening the security and harmony of society, they have to be seen as sacred. Holy.
...

That's demonstrably wrong:

Atheists don't consider their morals as sacred or holy, yet they are not going against them.

 

[Inkfingers]

That's demonstrably wrong:

Atheists don't consider their morals as sacred or holy, yet they are not going against them.

If you don't consider your morals to be sacred, you will break them if given the opportunity to do so and both:
1) not get caught
2) not rock the boat in breaking them.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

If you don't consider your morals to be sacred, you will break them if given the opportunity to do so and both not get caught and not rock the boat in breaking them.

I have opportunity to break my morals without getting caught, and without rocking the boat (if we both mean the same thing by this), but I don't.

So you are demonstrably wrong.

 

[Inkfingers]

I have opportunity to break my morals without getting caught, and without rocking the boat (if we both mean the same thing by this), but I don't.

So you are demonstrably wrong.

Then your morals are either sacred or you are speaking untruths about what your behaviour would be if given the opportunity to break them...

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Then your morals are either sacred or you are speaking untruths about what your behaviour would be if given the opportunity to break them...

How can you possibly know what I will or won't do, and what my reasoning is?

Are you claiming that you can read minds?

 

[Inkfingers]

How can you possibly know what I will or won't do, and what my reasoning is?

I don't know what you will or wont do.

I can only know that if your values are sacred you will keep them even if you have the opportunity to break them (and gain from the breaking whilst not getting caught and not threatening the secure social environment those morals provide).

And if they are not sacred....you will break them if you can get away with it.

 

[Skavau]

If you don't consider your morals to be sacred, you will break them if given the opportunity to do so and both:
1) not get caught
2) not rock the boat in breaking them.

That rather depends on your definition of "sacred".

 

[ThinkForYourself]

I don't know what you will or wont do.

I can only know that if your values are sacred you will keep them even if you have the opportunity to break them (and gain from the breaking whilst not getting caught and not threatening the secure social environment those morals provide).

And if they are not sacred....you will break them if you can get away with it.

As I stated, I am proof that you are incorrect.

Or do you claim that you can read my mind?

 

[Inkfingers]

As I stated, I am proof that you are incorrect.

Or do you claim that you can read my mind?

I don't need to read your mind. I just need to be able to use logic.

 

[Hetta]

Yes of course.