Does morality exist without God?

[Antarctika]

Without God how do you explain morality other than it must have originated within man. But this presents a problem because man is viewed as little more than the last animal produced by the long, meandering, and chance process of evolution. An animal is not plagued by guilt after killing another animal. A dog does not experience remorse after stealing a bone from another dog. Yet man, who also is supposed to have evolved, feels both guilt and remorse when he commits certain acts that violate accepted standards of morality and ethics. Again, “In the beginning, God,”

I don't see the problem actually, the notion of conscience starts with great apes. The fact morality starts with the human race makes sense to me.

 

[Antarctika]

Despite their opposing philosophical/theological orientations, both theists and atheists agree that some things are “good” or “right,” while other things are “evil” or “wrong.”

The sense of moral obligation unique to the human species and is a powerful argument for the existence of the personal God of the Bible that created human beings in His own image (Genesis 1:26-27). And, practically speaking, without such a standard the lines between “right” and “wrong” not only are blurred, but actually fade into non-existence. In the final analysis, the atheistic attempt to erect a moral superstructure apart from the existence of a personal God will suffer the same fate as a house built on sand—inevitably it will collapse.

True, every human being out there will agree some things are right/good and that other things are wrong. That's the only think i can be sure about.

Now, is it an evidence of the existence of God. Probably not, why would it be one? Morality could be a consequence of our brain's abilities.

As for the erection of a moral superstructure by atheists, I'm not sure it's something that needs to be erected. It's more like acknowledging the presence of morality and move on as such. It does not even require to be an atheist (i'm not one for instance).

I don't know why morality should collapse when used by a someone not convinced of the existence of a "personal god". Tons of non-religious (atheists, agnostics, deists...) people use morality and live balanced and non-wicked live. I don't see the problem.

 

[Daniel25]

In what way?

because the honest atheist understands all of his actions are determined, by society or by his own inherant nature.

as soon as you step into free will, you abandon atheism. the alternative's frightening though they may be, are all defensiable. At this point.

 

[The Nihilist]

because the honest atheist understands all of his actions are determined, by society or by his own inherant nature.

as soon as you step into free will, you abandon atheism. the alternative's frightening though they may be, are all defensiable. At this point.

No. An atheist's actions are only determined if he's right*. To the extent that he is a slave to society or biology, you are also a slave.



*See Mark's comment. I didn't want to get in to it.

 

[Eudaimonist]

as soon as you step into free will, you abandon atheism.

Not so. There are plenty of atheists who, for philosophical reasons, accept the idea that we have free will. That includes myself.

There is no philosophical requirement for a package deal between free will and theism, and determinism and atheism. I suspect that the idea that atheists must be determinists arises from the view that atheists must be reductive materialists, which isn't the case.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Hespera]

because the honest atheist understands all of his actions are determined, by society or by his own inherant nature.

as soon as you step into free will, you abandon atheism. the alternative's frightening though they may be, are all defensiable. At this point.

You know, people who think they can define other peoples' honesty in terms of their own eccentric notions are really not worthy of any respect at all.

A "philosopher" who cannot even spell isn't worthy of much either.

 

[Cabal]

You know, people who think they can define other peoples' honesty in terms of their own eccentric notions are really not worthy of any respect at all.

A "philosopher" who cannot spell isn't worthy of much either.

Nor is one who doesn't realise the massive problems to the concept of free will an omniscient and omnipotent deity brings, and even considers introducing such a concept an improvement.

 

[Hespera]

Nor is one who doesn't realise the massive problems to the concept of free will an omniscient and omnipotent deity brings, and even considers introducing such a concept an improvement.

the problem of an omnipotent omniscient creator who knows everything that will happen is tough for a theist to combine with free will.

That is why they try to pin it on us as the ones with a problem.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

because the honest atheist understands all of his actions are determined, by society or by his own inherant nature.

as soon as you step into free will, you abandon atheism. the alternative's frightening though they may be, are all defensiable. At this point.

There is a difference between absolute determinism and admitting that there are things we are conditioned and affected by outside of our will and volition. Just because I admit such a thing from a Buddhist perspective doesn't make me less of an atheist overall, on a side note. But I do not claim that I cannot alter my habits apart from society or my own nature in some sense.

To say that seems not only simplistic in understanding the diverse atheist positions on human nature and free will, but also seems intellectually dishonest in approaching all that diversity and then trying to boil it down to fatalism and nihilism, which are not a necessary result of atheist beliefs.

 

[Phred]

because the honest atheist understands all of his actions are determined, by society or by his own inherant nature.

as soon as you step into free will, you abandon atheism. the alternative's frightening though they may be, are all defensiable. At this point.

Wow... that's a load of crap.

An honest atheist simply doesn't believe there is a god. Any god. That does not flip on and off regardless of whether or not that atheist recognizes societies contributions to our "morality" or free will.

Amazing how desperate some are to find that magic being hiding in every corner.

 

[Belk]

You know, people who think they can define other peoples' honesty in terms of their own eccentric notions are really not worthy of any respect at all.

A "philosopher" who cannot even spell isn't worthy of much either.

The spelling doesn't bother me as much as the bizarre punctuation. Admittedly, part of that is my own tendency to spell phonetically.

 

[variant]

Does morality exist without God? Why would it?

If God dosen't exist, and morality can be said to exist, then yes morality exists without God.

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

GOD is the judge

so morality could not have existed withOUT GOD

If God dosen't exist, and morality can be said to exist, then yes morality exists without God.

 

[variant]

GOD is the judge

so morality could not have existed withOUT GOD

That is just your assumption based upon your beliefs, and we already know what your assumptions are from your beliefs, reinterating them dosen't really help without support.

Does morality need a judge or is it merely a part of how we judge or the act of judgement in and of itself?

How do we tell the difference?

 

[Eudaimonist]

GOD is the judge

so morality could not have existed withOUT GOD

Are you saying that if God did not judge, then murder, rape, and torture would be perfectly okay, and no one would be able to find fault with them?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[AGODBELIEVERlove1stfaith2]

sin is trangression of the LAW

law was given ...

Are you saying that if God did not judge, then murder, rape, and torture would be perfectly okay, and no one would be able to find fault with them?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Phred]

sin is trangression of the LAW

law was given ...

and it's YOU who believes that law was given by a magical being and not by men.

IF there is only ONE GOD and IF that ONE GOD gave us the LAW then that LAW would be universal and all things that are WRONG would be WRONG everywhere regardless of belief. This statement is not true. Thus some part of the statement is false. Either the deity does not exist or the deity does exist but did not give us the law or... you figure it out. I already have to my satisfaction.

 

[Cute Tink]

because the honest atheist understands all of his actions are determined, by society or by his own inherant nature.

as soon as you step into free will, you abandon atheism. the alternative's frightening though they may be, are all defensiable. At this point.

So an honest atheist admits that he has no control over his life? Who then controls? Society? Not so. If society controlled people to the degree you imply, then there would be no crime.

If everyone was controlled by their "inherant" nature, then there would be no laws, because you cannot control your inherent nature and all behavior would, therefore, be acceptable.

Free will, however, works better for a no-god belief, because if you insert an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent being, then the violation of free will becomes more than possible, it becomes easily probable.

As much as society or inherent nature can try to control, it lacks the ultimate ability to do so without fail. Free will exists because people can think and choose.

As to the direct topic: yes, morality exists without the divine. How could I believe any differently given my atheism?

 

[Hespera]

The spelling doesn't bother me as much as the bizarre punctuation. Admittedly, part of that is my own tendency to spell phonetically.

Its not that the poor English was the main thing wrong with what was said. of course, but its a bit like "if you are so smart why aint you rich?"

There may be a good reason of course.

However, poor command of English by someone claiming great wisdom does have a jarring effect on the credibility of the whole thing.

 

[Hespera]

GOD is the judge

so morality could not have existed withOUT GOD

Chinese were discussing morality and writing poetry while the Europeans were still poking at cave bears with sharp sticks and were millenia away from adopting as their own the sky god religion of some middle eastern tribe.

As for your logic, your "god is judge therefore morality could not exist w/o" makes no sense at all.

Every society has worked out a code of morality on its own, It would still be morality even if there were a god who doesnt agree with it.