Does morality exist without God?

[sandwiches]

I highly doubt the social animals have any abstract notion of "morality". They may have their specific morality and follow it (usually), but the abstraction is far from their little minds.

I didn't say anything about abstraction or much in the way of self awareness, however this doesn't change the fact that morality is, like anything else in the universe, a continuum that joins the most basic automated chemical responses of ameoba to our complex and often conflicting problems of the individual versus the group.

God is merely an explanation humans came up with to answer their original questions, while these questions may have appeared very early in human evolution, the fact remains that animals, including our own ancestors had been faced with moral decisions and acted upon them probably for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years prior.

Just like animals may not have the abstract notion of 'love,' the feelings of affection, care, concern, attraction, etc are all observed in the animals kingdom.

 

[Upisoft]

I didn't say anything about abstraction or much in the way of self awareness, however this doesn't change the fact that morality is, like anything else in the universe, a continuum that joins the most basic automated chemical responses of ameoba to our complex and often conflicting problems of the individual versus the group.

God is merely an explanation humans came up with to answer their original questions, while these questions may have appeared very early in human evolution, the fact remains that animals, including our own ancestors had been faced with moral decisions and acted upon them probably for hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years prior.

I disagree that morality is continuum. Morality is a set of rules generally followed by the members of a group. Since there are different groups with different sets of rules, say Aztecs an Conquistadors, you have discontinuation between them. Sometimes in human societies this discontinuation is a reason for war. People fight over ideas as much as they fight over wealth.
Since there are different morality rules you can't think about "morality" in any other way than abstract, unless specific morality is discussed. The OP tried to classify them somehow, but still "God's morality" is just set of different moralities for each known god(Zeus, Ra, etc.). It is still abstract thing and not specific.
Thus, the question does not have any meaning than abstract and my conclusions were made over the abstracts "Morality" and "God".

 

[rjc34]

I disagree that morality is continuum. Morality is a set of rules generally followed by the members of a group. Since there are different groups with different sets of rules, say Aztecs an Conquistadors, you have discontinuation between them. Sometimes in human societies this discontinuation is a reason for war. People fight over ideas as much as they fight over wealth.
Since there are different morality rules you can't think about "morality" in any other way than abstract, unless specific morality is discussed. The OP tried to classify them somehow, but still "God's morality" is just set of different moralities for each known god(Zeus, Ra, etc.). It is still abstract thing and not specific.
Thus, the question does not have any meaning than abstract and my conclusions were made over the abstracts "Morality" and "God".

I'm still confused as to what you're trying to argue...

Are you trying to say that you don't believe in any gods, but the morality from all societies must stem from the belief in one, even if they have to create it?

 

[Upisoft]

I'm still confused as to what you're trying to argue...

Are you trying to say that you don't believe in any gods, but the morality from all societies must stem from the belief in one, even if they have to create it?

Not at all. The question is "Does morality exists without God?". There is no "require"(or "must") part in it.

Just imagine a person that knows what is morality, but never heard about any god at all. Now imagine everyone on Earth is this kind of person. Quite improbable picture.

Although I know there are people that know what is meant by the word "god", but don't understand the word "morality". People that have not been at school most probably don't know what is "morality".

Thus I can say that "morality" can't exist without "god", but "god" can exist without "morality". I hope the examples I made will make it understandable.

 

[chris4243]

I disagree with this. Morality in its most basic form was an evolutionary development. This is evidenced by the fact that most social animals can be have been observed to restrain and mold their behavior to best coexist in a group.

Now, I guess it could be argued that they also believe in a deity but I am not sure how this idea could be falsified.

It might however be easier to show animals are superstitious.
Superstition: A Matter of Bias, Not Detectability
CONDITIONS PRODUCING PSYCHOGENIC POLYDIPSIA IN ANIMALS* - Falk - 2006 - Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences - Wiley Online Library

 

[sandwiches]

I disagree that morality is continuum. Morality is a set of rules generally followed by the members of a group. Since there are different groups with different sets of rules, say Aztecs an Conquistadors, you have discontinuation between them. Sometimes in human societies this discontinuation is a reason for war. People fight over ideas as much as they fight over wealth.

And we have differences between chimpanzee morality and giraffe morality. I meant in the developmental way.

Since there are different morality rules you can't think about "morality" in any other way than abstract, unless specific morality is discussed. The OP tried to classify them somehow, but still "God's morality" is just set of different moralities for each known god(Zeus, Ra, etc.). It is still abstract thing and not specific.
Thus, the question does not have any meaning than abstract and my conclusions were made over the abstracts "Morality" and "God".

I disagree. I interpret his question to be either:
a) Is the existence of a deity necessary for rules of conduct to exist?
b) Does the belief in a deity predate rules of conduct?

I am answering both "No.'

The question you seem to be answering is this:
Can a society have a concept of morality without having a concept in a deity? And I think you're saying any society with a concept of morality will also have a concept of a deity. As concepts, I think it's possible, although I'm not too convinced either due to the existence of people like the Pirahã. As actual rules of conduct, I disagree with you.

 

[Upisoft]

I disagree. I interpret his question to be either:
a) Is the existence of a deity necessary for rules of conduct to exist?
b) Does the belief in a deity predate rules of conduct?

It is your right to interpret a question in any way, including meaningless (in my opinion). p. a) is meaningless, because despite the number of believers, the existence of deities is not proven. Thus the meaning of this question is:
Is [null] necessary for [rules of conduct]. Whatever the meaning of [rules of conduct] is, the question is still meaningless.

b) Does the belief in a deity predate [rules of conduct].
Which [rules of conduct]? Yours, mine or those of the chimpanzees? This question is not well defined and cannot have strict answer.

The question you seem to be answering is this:

I'm answering to the only question that I find to have actual meaning. Maybe there are others, but they are not a) or b) above.

 

[sandwiches]

It is your right to interpret a question in any way, including meaningless (in my opinion). p. a) is meaningless, because despite the number of believers, the existence of deities is not proven. Thus the meaning of this question is:
Is [null] necessary for [rules of conduct]. Whatever the meaning of [rules of conduct] is, the question is still meaningless.

b) Does the belief in a deity predate [rules of conduct].
Which [rules of conduct]? Yours, mine or those of the chimpanzees? This question is not well defined and cannot have strict answer.

I'm answering to the only question that I find to have actual meaning. Maybe there are others, but they are not a) or b) above.

Then whether you find meaning in this question or not, I'm afraid you're answering a question that wasn't asked. The OP clearly believes in a deity and he's asking whether morality can exist without a deity existing, possibly specifically the deity of Abraham, or at least if we can be moral without a belief in a deity.

So, here are my answers:
Can we be moral without a belief in a deity? Yes. The majority of atheists attest to this every single day.

Can societies have moral code without a belief in a deity? Yes. There are examples of societies without a deity that do have a moral code.

Is a deity necessary for a moral code? No. We know of natural ways through which this can occur without needing to allude to magic.

Did the belief in a deity develop before morality? No. Morality and its fundamentals has been around for way longer than humans.

 

[Upisoft]

Can we be moral without a belief in a deity? Yes. The majority of atheists attest to this every single day.

You are answering different question. Moral =/= Morality and "belief in deity" =/= God.

Can societies have moral code without a belief in a deity? Yes. There are examples of societies without a deity that do have a moral code.

Again "Moral code" =/= Morality and about belief.. look up

Is a deity necessary for a moral code? No. We know of natural ways through which this can occur without needing to allude to magic.

Is [null] necessary for a moral code. (I see no meaning in this question.)

Did the belief in a deity develop before the belief in a deity? No. Morality and its fundamentals has been around for way longer than humans.

Maybe you wanted to ask about "moral code" in place of second "belief in a deity". Anyway, I will agree that some specific moral code existed before any specific belief in a deity. But I don't agree that the abstraction of "morality" was developed before first belief in some god(s).
Anyway I don't find your interpretation of the question valid, as I have already pointed out that the belief in X is not X, nor any specific moral code is "morality"

 

[sandwiches]

You are answering different question. Moral =/= Morality and "belief in deity" =/= God.

Again "Moral code" =/= Morality and about belief.. look up


Is [null] necessary for a moral code. (I see no meaning in this question.)


Maybe you wanted to ask about "moral code" in place of second "belief in a deity". Anyway, I will agree that some specific moral code existed before any specific belief in a deity. But I don't agree that the abstraction of "morality" was developed before first belief in some god(s).
Anyway I don't find your interpretation of the question valid, as I have already pointed out that the belief in X is not X, nor any specific moral code is "morality"

Yea, I messed up in that question. =P
And I'm just answering possible questions he might have intended. I understand that morality is not the same as to what people find moral.

Regardless, the OP wasn't asking about the idea or concept of morality. It's clear from his post that he was asking about whether the rules of morality or a moral code could exist without his deity.

It's like if I asked you "Is altruism possible without drinking milk?" I am not asking you whether you think that the concept of altruism can be abstracted without drinking milk. I am asking you whether the act of being selflessly helpful or good is possible without drinking milk.

 

[Upisoft]

Regardless, the OP wasn't asking about the idea or concept of morality. It's clear from his post that he was asking about whether the rules of morality or a moral code could exist without his deity.

Still pointless question. He has not show his deity, so how are we supposed to answer that question anyway?

 

[sandwiches]

Still pointless question. He has not show his deity, so how are we supposed to answer that question anyway?

Well, I think the question can be answered. Imagine if I asked you "Can you brush your teeth without my Super Secret Method?" Of course you can (presumably!) You don't need an explanation of what my Super Secret Method is.

 

[chris4243]

Still pointless question. He has not show his deity, so how are we supposed to answer that question anyway?

No, it is not a pointless question. If the answer is "no", then the existence of morality is proof of the existence of God. I'd almost say it was a silly question, but my pastor repeatedly says that without God there is no morality and can't stand any hint of morality being relative or arbitrary.

However the question could be called ill-defined and meaningless if he doesn't define his terms (both God, and morality), unless he accepts others defining his terms for him.

 

[Upisoft]

Well, I think the question can be answered. Imagine if I asked you "Can you brush your teeth without my Super Secret Method?" Of course you can (presumably!) You don't need an explanation of what my Super Secret Method is.

How do I know? I know nothing about your SSM. If SSM exists, and I have no proof it does not, then you could be correct.

So, I either have to prove that SSM doesn't exist (which I can't do),
or prove that SSM exists, list all connections between SSM and my theet brushing activities and get empty list.

So, you ask me a question to put the burden of proof on me. Now I have to prove existence or non-existence of SSM to be able to answer. Instead I can tell you that your question is meaningles unless you show me your SSM. Now the burden of proof is where it belongs.

 

[yasic]

To answer the OP:

Would children still get presents on Christmas if Santa didn't exist?

 

[sandwiches]

How do I know? I know nothing about your SSM. If SSM exists, and I have no proof it does not, then you could be correct.

So, I either have to prove that SSM doesn't exist (which I can't do),
or prove that SSM exists, list all connections between SSM and my theet brushing activities and get empty list.

So, you ask me a question to put the burden of proof on me. Now I have to prove existence or non-existence of SSM to be able to answer. Instead I can tell you that your question is meaningles unless you show me your SSM. Now the burden of proof is where it belongs.

You know, what? I think you're right. I see your point. If I don't describe or define my SSM, then it could be anything, including something you already do. So, the question is unanswerable without this definition. Good point.

 

[Upisoft]

You know, what? I think you're right. I see your point. If I don't describe or define my SSM, then it could be anything, including something you already do. So, the question is unanswerable without this definition. Good point.

Thanks.

I hate when someone is trying to put the burden of proof on me, when it actually is on him.

 

[chris4243]

Thanks.

I hate when someone is trying to put the burden of proof on me, when it actually is on him.

Why is it necessary to prove that A exists to prove that If ~A then ~B? (or If B then A if you prefer)

 

[Belk]

Why is it necessary to prove that A exists to prove that If ~A then ~B? (or If B then A if you prefer)

Because the question assumes that B is dependent upon A. If ~A then ~B by default. However if A then we can try to determine ~B or B.

 

[chris4243]

Because the question assumes that B is dependent upon A.

No, the question is, "Is B dependent upon A".