Can there be morality without God?

[Inkfingers]

Now, the question remains: What do we use to decide whether your above presupposition ("God is central...") is a fact? (Without getting circular, that is).

As I said; we use reason, evidence, and deduction.

 

[quatona]

As I said; we use reason, evidence, and deduction.

I guess that´s why the existence of a God has been conclusively and demonstrablby established, in the meantime, and you guys are getting this year´s NobelPrice.

 

[Inkfingers]

I guess that´s why the existence of a God has been conclusively and demonstrablby established, in the meantime, and you guys are getting this year´s NobelPrice.

Firstly, Nobel doesn't offer a prize for metaphysics.

Secondly, they are quite famously biased (hence the Nobel suck-up special award given to Obama for services to being voted in by gullible liberals when mixed-race).

Thirdly, on the subject of your post....maybe such has been shown, but you just did not understand it.

PS: when I get my Nobel prize for showing the argument that proves God exists....you can kiss my axiom

 

[Dave-W]

Well - axiom no questions and I will tell you no lies .....

 

[BL2KTN]

Can we establish that in reality they're not trying to hinge this on the existence of a god or the God, but on a very specific version of a god that they have: Yahweh. So not only do the Christians arguing in this manner have to presuppose the existence of God in order to claim that morality is dependent upon Him, but they have to presuppose the existence of a Canaanite deity within a pantheon of other deities (the others of which they discount).

It's absurd.

 

[stevevw]

The Christian God is identified in Jesus Christ. So we have a clear meaning as to who God is. He is identified in the life and teachings of Jesus. This can be seen in the new testament. Jesus is the fulfillment of the law of the old testament. There is no other way to God except through Jesus. In Jesus there is no sin so He is moral and worthy.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Morality could refer to an opinion. In that case, all your questions about truth go out the window. We can just say it's an opinion like any other without much fuss at all...no tricky follow up questions to resolve.

If there is no such thing as the way things ought to be--if there is only the way that people think things ought to be--then "morality" is people's opinions about something that does not exist.

 

[quatona]

Thirdly, on the subject of your post....maybe such has been shown, but you just did not understand it.

So we would be back at square one in our question: those terrible "maybe´s".

PS: when I get my Nobel prize for showing the argument that proves God exists....you can kiss my axiom

 

[PapaBillyJr2]

Christianity and the Anglican ereligion are two different items. It is because of Christianity that we came to America, to seperate ourselves from the King and Queens Anglican power hold. But they got back ahold of the power, and starting teaching it in the first colleges and universities. The results were the famous witch burnings. That is when we came up with seperation of church and state, so that the Anglican government could not force their one religion down our throats. Man has the right now to choose which way to follow. That is the original meaning of seperation from church and state.

 

[Ana the Ist]

The word "opinion" is frequently just used as a dismissal, "oh that's just your opinion", as if it just happens to be that you believe something but without real substance behind it.

Subjective, essentially. Like "you say pizza is better than curry but that's just your opinion".

Reduce morality to that and one opinion carries no more weight than any other. Leaving you in a sort of ethical lagrange point.

Well, I'd say that the way others look at you morally probably bears more weight than opinions of pizza and curry...but yes, it's still just an opinion.

The desire for morality to be a more weighty discussion doesn't magically change opinions to truths.

 

[Dave Ellis]

The Christian God is identified in Jesus Christ. So we have a clear meaning as to who God is. He is identified in the life and teachings of Jesus. This can be seen in the new testament. Jesus is the fulfillment of the law of the old testament. There is no other way to God except through Jesus. In Jesus there is no sin so He is moral and worthy.

I thought you could also get to god through Muhammad? That's what this Muslim fellow was telling me the other day.

Is he wrong? How do you know he's wrong? What makes your claim stronger than his?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Christianity and the Anglican ereligion are two different items. It is because of Christianity that we came to America, to seperate ourselves from the King and Queens Anglican power hold. But they got back ahold of the power, and starting teaching it in the first colleges and universities. The results were the famous witch burnings. That is when we came up with seperation of church and state, so that the Anglican government could not force their one religion down our throats. Man has the right now to choose which way to follow. That is the original meaning of seperation from church and state.

I suggest you read a history book...

 

[Strathos]

Christianity and the Anglican ereligion are two different items. It is because of Christianity that we came to America, to seperate ourselves from the King and Queens Anglican power hold. But they got back ahold of the power, and starting teaching it in the first colleges and universities. The results were the famous witch burnings. That is when we came up with seperation of church and state, so that the Anglican government could not force their one religion down our throats. Man has the right now to choose which way to follow. That is the original meaning of seperation from church and state.

As an Anglican, this is both false and offensive.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If there is no such thing as the way things ought to be--if there is only the way that people think things ought to be--then "morality" is people's opinions about something that does not exist.

Well...I guess you still managed to come up with at least one tricky question lol.

Maybe there is a way things ought to be...maybe there isn't...

The problem is that I don't think it's possible to "know" what ought to be. How could we determine such a thing? Even with a clear goal in mind (world peace for example) how does one determine what ought to be to achieve that goal? Would it involve a worldwide effort in diplomacy that pushes forward until all are on the same page? Would it involve the conquering and subjugation of everyone who won't willingly join in your vision of world peace?

So if we cannot know what ought to be... why would we attempt to judge others by such a standard? At most, we can only judge according to opinion.

 

[keith99]

As an Anglican, this is both false and offensive.

Same holds for at least one non-anglican.

Lies offend me.

 

[Ana the Ist]

[FONT=&quot]The benefits is only one aspect of why Christians follow God. But I was replying to when you said that I blindly follow God. I was saying there were reasons and one of them is the benefits. But that is mixed with other things. Sometimes you don’t see any benefits straight away.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Religion can be one of the biggest deceivers for using God to do evil. Its easier to fool others and especially yourself that way. But that doesn't mean that there can be a truth to a faith in God.


[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]That’s silly, now your just disagreeing to make a point. Anyone would think that honoring your parents was good. There are many ways in which we can see that following Gods ways bring benefits and make peoples lives for the better. It just makes sense.

But even if you look at it from a scientific point of view it makes sense. Studies have shown people who are religious have better results in life. It makes sense that these people are interested in helping others more often, help the vulnerable and isolated in society, have communion with others which gives benefits of not being lonely. Helping society generally as helping others is a important part of belief. Secular society can also do these things but it is hit and miss. There are no common beliefs and in fact some laws in society promote the opposite with things such as easy divorces and sex outside marriage.
Being married and being involved in religious activities are generally associated with positive effects in several areas, including physical and mental health, economic outcomes, and the process of raising children.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/[/FONT][FONT=&quot]PMC[/FONT][FONT=&quot]2614329/
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yes but that is not deciding between many different subjective views which come from humans. As I said the justification for killing in self defense is a very rare allowance because it involves a greater moral in the protection and preservation of life. This is also a moral of God. A person doesn't just stand there and get killed when they are being attacked or let that killer kill their family. Then that turns the situation into you allowing someone to be killed. You are then in some ways responsible for your family being killed because you didn't protect them or you’re self. So that’s the only exception. As you can see Two of Gods morals have crossed paths.

But w
[/FONT]
Morals can be assessed and if we are honest we can discover if they are truly right or wrong. Its just people justify their actions with reasons that are not always justified if we are truthful. The world view is to claim there is no truth and muddy the waters so that it allows them to make their actions acceptable. Normally there is a selfish reason or motive behind most unjustified reasons for doing something that is wrong. We all know that killing is wrong. The taking of another life at anytime is not good. It can be justified for some reasons and I have touched on that.

You say abortion is ok for some. But I think we can discover if it is truly right or wrong by investigating it. The fact is anyone who has an abortion whether they claim that it’s ok or not is affected by it. The main reason it sits well with some is that they tell themselves a fetus is not a life. But if it was a life it wouldn't sit well. So that is something that is up for debate. But another fact is that any woman who has a miscarriage no matter when it happens grieves like they have lost of child. This is natural and that is part of the process. So this gives some insight into the real issues around abortion. Its not so easy to do.

There is nearly 2,550 abortion everyday in the US. There are nearly 8 million a year. There are over 1.3 billion abortions a year world wide. No matter which way you look at this it is bad. It can’t be good for the psyche of a nation of people. If we stop and consider the truth I think you can see that there are many unjustified reasons people do things. But subjectivity has to allow the many excuses that allow these things to be done because that is the nature a secular society. Its one thing to allow people the right to decide for themselves. It’s another thing to actually allow them to do it. Because you don’t believe in God and objective morality you therefore don’t allow people to be told what to do. That’s when you are asking for trouble. Once you open the can of worms its hard to put the lid back on.

Here is a moral I once found as an example that takes away some of the options to show you that morality can be objective.
The Moral Argument: Objective Moral Values

‘Objective’ moral values would be values that are the same for everyone, everywhere, whenever they lived in history. For example, look at the following statement:

• Torturing little babies for fun is just plain wrong for everyone, everywhere; it always has been and always will be.

If you believe that statement is true, then you believe in objective morality.

[FONT=&quot]Like you said to me about how do I know for sure that I am right or God is right about Morals. How do you know that the majority is right? If one persons view on morals isn't correct and is just an opinion, isn't many individuals view still just an opinion that isn't correct? They are legalizing pot according to the majority in those states. They legalized alcohol according to the majority. But both affect people and cause many deaths. How do you know in 20 years or so we don’t end up with a big problem of mental illness from pot. This happens all the time. The majority think they know but they still get it wrong.
[/FONT]
Because its taking a life and life is precious. God said thou shall not kill.
[FONT=&quot]Notice what you do when you assert that morality is subjective. With this assertion you affirm that there are no objective moral principles that are binding on anyone else. Now here's the problem. It is immensely difficult to deny the existence of all objective moral principles without at the same time affirming at least one. Which is because there are no objective moral principles, you ought not to evaluate my actions by any such principles. The problem with that statement is that it refutes itself. [/FONT]
. As I mentioned before some people can be hypocrites and say they are religious but they dont practice what they preach.

Heres the problem with subjective morality.
But here’s the problem with the argument for subjective morality.
The claim that morality is subjective presupposes that there are facts about right and wrong, and that these facts are agent-specific. In other words, there are different moral facts for different people. “Killing animals is morally acceptable for Bob” and “Killing animals is morally unacceptable for Susie” can coexist as moral facts under subjective morality. But this is clearly absurd. How can it make sense to apply different moral standards to different people?

If there is a rational argument for the moral wrongness of killing animals, surely that argument must apply generally rather than to some people and not to others? Obviously there are many different contexts in which an act such as the killing of an animal can occur, but differences of context are not the issue at hand. If Bob and Susie commit the same act, in the same context, with same intentions, surely the act must have the same moral status regardless of whether it was committed by Susie or Bob.
http://armchairphilosophyblog.tumblr.com/post/27545173416/the-impossibility-of-subjective-morality

Thankfully, you haven't said much that's new here...so my reply shouldn't be as long.

Sometimes you don’t see any benefits straight away.

I'm sorry Steve, but you're creating a double standard here that allows for confirmation bias. If you're going to claim that people are justified to follow god's will because it benefits them, then they are justified to follow something else when it doesn't benefit them. It's your logic, you don't get to ignore the half of it that you don't like.

Religion can be one of the biggest deceivers for using God to do evil. Its easier to fool others and especially yourself that way

I'm glad you agree. That's why your point about mankind being fallible is irrelevant...even those who try to follow god's will are just as fallible. There's no reason to suggest one is better than the other.

That’s silly, now your just disagreeing to make a point. Anyone would think that honoring your parents was good

I don't think it's silly, and I'm making the point to show that your view of morality is wrong. Should we honor our parents? Maybe...if they deserve it. I've seen from personal experience situations where being that kind of son/daughter brought nothing but grief and disappointment. It wasn't until the daughter started being much harder on her parents and held them accountable for what they said and did that things began to improve at all.
If you want to claim it's a moral truth...then prove it is. Saying that "it just makes sense" doesn't make anything a fact...it makes it an opinion.

But even if you look at it from a scientific point of view...

Steve, we went over this a few posts ago. Maybe you forgot since its been a few days...but science doesn't agree with you on this. The most religious nations on the planet are the worst off...while the most secular nations are doing the best. The U.S. is one of the few exceptions to that rule, when we examine how well off the religious are vs the non-religious because of largely how the non-religious are ostracized, discriminated against, and generally oppressed. If you already have forgotten, I can go back and give you a post and page number where we went over this.

You are then in some ways responsible for your family being killed because you didn't protect them or you’re self. So that’s the only exception.

There are many many christians who disagree with you on this. Since god doesn't list all the exceptions to his rules in the bible, how does one know who is following god's will and who isn't?

That’s because subjective morality states that everyone's views are valid. So no one can really say to another that they are wrong for believing what they do because that is their personal beliefs and they think that is OK.

Subjective morality doesn't say everyone's views are "valid"...it just states that everyone has differing views. Anyone can tell anyone their views are wrong and give that person their reasons why. I don't know why you think subjective morality is a free-for-all where everyone is ok with everyone else's views. I'm certain I've never told you this, I doubt anyone else who believes in subjective morality ever has. The only ones saying this are the christians who claim morality comes from god...they aren't exactly a good source for understanding subjective morality. They are deliberately misrepresenting it and you're drinking the kool-aid.

Morals can be assessed and if we are honest we can discover if they are truly right or wrong.
How?

The main reason it sits well with some is that they tell themselves a fetus is not a life.

I'm just going to dismiss this because we all know you can't read minds. Is there any way to assess moral truths that don't involve mind reading? Personally I am 100% fine with abortion and I do think it's killing.

There are over 1.3 billion abortions a year world wide. No matter which way you look at this it is bad

I don't think it's bad. I also know that for some women (those whom I've spoken to about it) the guilt they felt over an abortion was directly the result of being shamed by christians who think it's wrong.

Its one thing to allow people the right to decide for themselves. It’s another thing to actually allow them to do it.

You're right, these are different lol. One is also useless without the other.

Objective’ moral values would be values that are the same for everyone, everywhere, whenever they lived in history. For example, look at the following statement:

• Torturing little babies for fun is just plain wrong for everyone, everywhere; it always has been and always will be.

If you believe that statement is true, then you believe in objective morality.


I don't think it's true, I can think of one historical context by which I'm ok with it. Lets suppose I agreed that it's always wrong...why does that make it objective? You've said yourself that agreement has nothing to do with it. At most, it would just be a moral opinion that we agree on. Can you explain why it's factually wrong?

How do you know that the majority is right? If one persons view on morals isn't correct and is just an opinion, isn't many individuals view still just an opinion that isn't correct? They are legalizing pot according to the majority ....

This always ends up happening when you start confusing morals and laws. I didn't say the majority is right...I said that it's majority opinions that become laws. Go back and re-read what I wrote.

Because its taking a life and life is precious. God said thou shall not kill.

Why is life precious? That's your opinion. Why does god not want you to kill?

Which is because there are no objective moral principles, you ought not to evaluate my actions by any such principles. The problem with that statement is that it refutes itself.

Lol this is some zany logic if I've ever read it. Lets break this down and maybe you'll see why it doesn't make sense...

"because there are no objective moral principles...". Gotcha, no objective moral principles exist..."...you ought not evaluate my actions by any such principles." Do you mean, "you ought not evaluate my actions by any objective moral principles"? I think that's what you mean...so here's the problem, when you say "ought" you're speaking about something that could happen. Since there aren't any moral objective principles (which you established in the first part of the sentence) I literally cannot judge you by objective principles if they don't exist. Whether I ought to or not becomes irrelevant.

As I mentioned before some people can be hypocrites and say they are religious but they dont practice what they preach.

Some do practice what they preach, and they still end up having an awful life.

How can it make sense to apply different moral standards to different people?

We don't do that though. I judge everybody according to my standards... Just like you judge everybody according to yours.

 

[GlockMeister]

No. They have no standard to base their decision about right and wrong on other than their self.

 

[Inkfingers]

Why does god not want you to kill?

God doesn't want us to murder, steal, rape, cheat, lie, disturb and debauch because he wants us to live in an orderly, harmonious, peaceful, secure, enduring, aware manner rather than in a state of nature (Hobbes' "war of each against all"). And, self-evidently, murder, theft, rape, cheating, lying, disturbing and debauchery destroy order, harmony, peace, security, continuation, and awareness - plunging us into bestial ignorance and "no arts or letters....solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".

Why does he want us to live in an orderly, harmonious, peaceful, secure, enduring, and aware manner?

He wants us to live in that manner because it is his own nature and he wishes to bring us closer to it.

God throws a ball at the floor. The floor is hard matter; rock, sand, water, air, etc. Life is the bounce back upwards. Single-celled life is the lowest point on the bounce. Insects are above them. Birds are above them. Mammals above them. Primates above other mammals. And humans above primates. A pyramid of life, with the lower being the foundation for the higher to rise upon.

I hope it's obvious that this isn't meant to be a complete (or literal!) picture of all lifeforms, obviously, but a metaphorical overview that carries the general point.

 

[quatona]

No. They have no standard to base their decision about right and wrong on other than their self.

And neither have you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

God doesn't want us to murder, steal, rape, cheat, lie, disturb and debauch because he wants us to live in an orderly, harmonious, peaceful, secure, enduring, aware manner rather than in a state of nature (Hobbes' "war of each against all"). And, self-evidently, murder, theft, rape, cheating, lying, disturbing and debauchery destroy order, harmony, peace, security, continuation, and awareness - plunging us into bestial ignorance and "no arts or letters....solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short".

Why does he want us to live in an orderly, harmonious, peaceful, secure, enduring, and aware manner?

He wants us to live in that manner because it is his own nature and he wishes to bring us closer to it.

God throws a ball at the floor. The floor is hard matter; rock, sand, water, air, etc. Life is the bounce back upwards. Single-celled life is the lowest point on the bounce. Insects are above them. Birds are above them. Mammals above them. Primates above other mammals. And humans above primates. A pyramid of life, with the lower being the foundation for the higher to rise upon.

I hope it's obvious that this isn't meant to be a complete (or literal!) picture of all lifeforms, obviously, but a metaphorical overview that carries the general point.

So basically, it comes down to what you think god wants...not what is right and wrong. I'm guessing if I asked you how you know what god wants, you'll throw some bible quotes at me. So, instead I'm going to ask why does god want to bring us "closer" to his own nature?

Please don't think that's an unfair question. I could be asking why didn't god just make us closer to his own nature? Or why didn't he make us with the same qualities as his own nature? Both of those, I think, are much tougher questions.