Without Christ is there a basis for Morality?

[theywhosowintears]

I do not see how there can be a basis for morality without an underlying fundamental (or perhaps, "foundational") belief in something.

If we are simply random chance and of no greater value then animals all things are permissible, evolution teaches that animals, rape, eat their young and the stronger rules all that are weaker by force; as we are simply animals this is also acceptable for humanity. Reality becomes open to interpretation and personal belief takes the place of absolute truth. Law is meaningless, belief is meaningless, right and wrong are not absolute and therefore cannot actually exist... Everything breaks down to nothing if we do not have a basis for belief. Those who disbelieve absolute truth cannot logically prove anything (without absolute truth we cannot have truth at all only levels of 'untruth' and baseless belief).

Is this a reasonable statement?

Discuss!


Peace.

 

[Shane Roach]

Most societies use their statistical norms as a basis for expected behavior. The Bible even makes it clear that God leaves quite a bit of leniancy in religion for the fact that mankind is really not capable of upholding His particularly stringent definition of good.

It is perfectly possible for people to invent their own moralities. On the other hand, if God exists, the point is rather moot since He's the one who ultimately has the authority to decide which of any various value systes gets priority over the others.

 

[theywhosowintears]

Most societies use their statistical norms as a basis for expected behavior. The Bible even makes it clear that God leaves quite a bit of leniancy in religion for the fact that mankind is really not capable of upholding His particularly stringent definition of good.

It is perfectly possible for people to invent their own moralities. On the other hand, if God exists, the point is rather moot since He's the one who ultimately has the authority to decide which of any various value systes gets priority over the others.

Take away Absolute truth. (that would be God) Take away Absolute good (that would also be God) take away absolute right {or righteousness} (that would be God too) Absolute reality (once again God)

you are left with a morality that is based on feelings or on an illogical assumption that there is normalcy (which without absolutes could not exists as all things are normal if there are no extremes or absolutes) and looking at nature the 'extreme' behaviours are actually very normal in animal behaviour.

Peace.

 

[Shane Roach]

Take away Absolute truth. (that would be God) Take away Absolute good (that would also be God) take away absolute right {or righteousness} (that would be God too) Absolute reality (once again God)

you are left with a morality that is based on feelings or on an illogical assumption that there is normalcy (which without absolutes could not exists as all things are normal if there are no extremes or absolutes) and looking at nature the 'extreme' behaviours are actually very normal in animal behaviour.

Peace.

Well, it's clear we agree on certain fundamentals, but just to continue trying to make clear what I am talking about I will tell a story I often tell.

I took a design class in college. In it, we were asked to take black and white construction paper,and using one color as the background and the other as a foreground shape, to create pictures that would represent various things. One of these for example was "floating". As you might imagine, most people used a black background with a white amorphous shape of some sort located in the upper right hand corner of the black page.

There are reasons for all of this, including the location on the page. Too close to the edge creates tension not congruent with the term "floating". It is up becuase things float up. It is to the right, interestingly, because that is the direction in which we read, from left to right. The instructor informed us that cultures that read from right to left tend to locate it on the upper left!

The point I am trying to make is that even if there were no God, if the world itself had certain properties people's values would reflect these realities.

The Bible actually tells us that the world reveals what can be known of God, such that those who have not heard are still culpable for their actions against God's values, and that is part of why I argue many moral issues from an agnostic point of view. I believe right and wrong can be clearly demonstrated to those who are not closing themselves to it willfully to coincide with Biblical values. This is one of the reasons why I find the ostracism of Christian values from public discourse in the US so dangerous and unfair.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Actually, it's quite simple. I am an atheist, and I have very strong morals. Where do they come from? Certainly not God.

It can be reasoned that if something hurts another person, then you shouldn't do it and should construct laws against it.

If someone kills me, I do not continue my existance, so I can reason that there should be a law against it, in order to keep me safe. In turn, breaking this law also puts myself in jeopardy of going to jail, so I would not do that either.

You also seem to not put any stock into people. Is this what Christianity is teaching people? That people on this earth are not compasionate enough or good enough to care about others?

 

[Mumbles]

I do not see how there can be a basis for morality without an underlying fundamental (or perhaps, "foundational") belief in something.

Well, I'd agree, but that's not saying much. I certainly wouldn't agree that the something had to be some god or other.

If we are simply random chance and of no greater value then animals all things are permissible, evolution teaches that animals, rape, eat their young and the stronger rules all that are weaker by force; as we are simply animals this is also acceptable for humanity.

Actually, biology also shows us many examples of animals cooperating, protecting the sick and weak, and so forth. This shouldn't be a suprise, since populations won't last long when the individuals all spend their time maiming and killing each other.

Reality becomes open to interpretation and personal belief takes the place of absolute truth.

The word "absolute" adds nothing to the sentence. And to be honest, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Reality is always interpreted by us, we try to match our beliefs to what is true.

Law is meaningless, belief is meaningless,

Meaningless to whom? Certainly, they are meaningful to most humans. And again, whether or not there's some god is of no relevence to this, so the christian one in particular does nothing to help. So your god thinks that murder is wrong? Why should I care?

right and wrong are not absolute and therefore cannot actually exist... Everything breaks down to nothing if we do not have a basis for belief. Those who disbelieve absolute truth cannot logically prove anything (without absolute truth we cannot have truth at all only levels of 'untruth' and baseless belief).

Okay, at this point, I'm seriously confused. Your subject line discusses Jesus, but in your post, you only talk about belief in truth. Are you trying to conflate your god with "absolute" truth, or are you simply making a general statement? If the latter, then I suppose I agree, but if the former, then I strongly disagree with you.

 

[theywhosowintears]

Actually, it's quite simple. I am an atheist, and I have very strong morals. Where do they come from? Certainly not God.

It can be reasoned that if something hurts another person, then you shouldn't do it and should construct laws against it.

If someone kills me, I do not continue my existance, so I can reason that there should be a law against it, in order to keep me safe. In turn, breaking this law also puts myself in jeopardy of going to jail, so I would not do that either.

You also seem to not put any stock into people. Is this what Christianity is teaching people? That people on this earth are not compasionate enough or good enough to care about others?

Follow my logic.

a long (really long long long long) time ago, a random event happened and there was some sort of cataclysmic event, only somehow it formed the entire universe... out of all the bazillion trillion septillion quillion (can I just say oodles) of planets, there was one, on it there was randomly the absolute perfect conditions for this bizarre and somewhat out of place phenomenon to occur. The phenomenon was a teeny weeny thing that somehow was alive, don't know why it just was alive, unlike anything before it. Over more billions of years this thing turned into various other things until finally you arrived sitting in front of a computer, a thing.

Now technically that is probably not exactly right (understating things here)

But assuming it were right, each thing in existence is of extremely little importance. Each thing ought to be concerned for the preservation of its own existence, and the pleasures it could gain during its existence and ultimately the continuation of its own 'genes' which are probably just another bunch of chemicals.

What's more we are just minerals or chemicals, on a molecular level like the parts on your computer. So as a piece of matter you are of no more value then the computer you are looking at to read this post (actually probably less).

So obviously... an evolutionary view gives a less then satisfactory explanation of life. For example if all we are is the sum of our parts, to kill someone simply passes their parts on to another organism or they become part of a mineral deposit or something.


Does that make you feel good about yourself. There is no need to pay heed to emotions as they are simply caused by chemicals in your brain which is a chemical/mineral/biological blob (very intricate but does that make it more valuable?)

Anyway.




Logical Conclusions

1. objectification of humanity.
a. It can only be reasoned that hurting a person is wrong if a person holds some form of value. And being exceptionally complex animals (a jumble of chemicals and minerals with a huge dose of water for good measure) does not constitute value.

b. It is only wrong if your existence is meaningful. As a complex blob, you don't have meaning.


c. It is only logical to have laws if they increase the chances of continuing the species. In fact it is only logical for the individual to obey 'laws' that increase the individuals chances.

Subjective reasoning. Your reasoning is subjective it relies on having 2 options, it relies on emotion and feeling. Not on logic. From an atheistic viewpoint there is no God, only chance. Chance + a few chemicals+ lot of time = you. There is no room for value.


This is not my view I am simply working through a philosophical viewpoint.


The Absolute Reality is God. He created, we fell, He begot, He saves, He gives meaning, He loves, He is the reason that I know there is something more to life.

 

[theywhosowintears]

Well, I'd agree, but that's not saying much. I certainly wouldn't agree that the something had to be some god or other.



Actually, biology also shows us many examples of animals cooperating, protecting the sick and weak, and so forth. This shouldn't be a suprise, since populations won't last long when the individuals all spend their time maiming and killing each other.



The word "absolute" adds nothing to the sentence. And to be honest, I'm not sure what you're getting at. Reality is always interpreted by us, we try to match our beliefs to what is true.



Meaningless to whom? Certainly, they are meaningful to most humans. And again, whether or not there's some god is of no relevence to this, so the christian one in particular does nothing to help. So your god thinks that murder is wrong? Why should I care?



Okay, at this point, I'm seriously confused. Your subject line discusses Jesus, but in your post, you only talk about belief in truth. Are you trying to conflate your god with "absolute" truth, or are you simply making a general statement? If the latter, then I suppose I agree, but if the former, then I strongly disagree with you.

Without a religious viewpoint does it make logical sense to subject ones self to any form of law or order, other then when compelled at the risk of losing ones existence?

Without a religious viewpoint can anything have intrinsic value other then the most basic atoms and genes (building blocks) that make up everything in existence?

Why would one conform to any law other then the law of the jungle, why would one love (its only chemicals in your brain)?

I am asking does a world without god actually compute? Can logical reason exist without an absolute basis

 

[AliveInChrist]

I have Jewish friends, Mormon friends and nonreligious friends who have the same moral standards I have. They got them from their raising, like their parents instilling good values in them, and also from their faith.

 

[mepalmer3]

Actually, it's quite simple. I am an atheist, and I have very strong morals. Where do they come from? Certainly not God.

It can be reasoned that if something hurts another person, then you shouldn't do it and should construct laws against it.

Many christian theologians (perhaps most) believe that all people have morals, that we all have a basic moral law, and that it's not man-made, but it comes from God. If it's man-made, then it really isn't a moral law, but rather a personal preference. I think that's what the OP was stating.

But certainly even if we can see that someone might get hurt by something we do, there is no sense of 'duty' that I ought not hurt someone unless there is a God. Logic or reason alone doesn't come close to coming up with morality unless we start with some moral truths. But the moral truths are the very thing we're trying to figure out where they come from. Further, if we really are purely products of evolution, then any sense of morality we have is just a feeling we have, not something that truly exists or not something that is truly right/wrong. It's like saying is it wrong that this species evolved this way instead of that way? right/wrong don't fit in an athiestic viewpoint. Granted, again, I'm well aware that all atheists have morals. I'm just saying that I believe the source of those morals must be denied in order for someone to remain an atheist.

 

[Madcoil]

I get all my morals from the back of cereal-boxes.

 

[Zaac]

I do not see how there can be a basis for morality without an underlying fundamental (or perhaps, "foundational") belief in something.

If we are simply random chance and of no greater value then animals all things are permissible, evolution teaches that animals, rape, eat their young and the stronger rules all that are weaker by force; as we are simply animals this is also acceptable for humanity. Reality becomes open to interpretation and personal belief takes the place of absolute truth. Law is meaningless, belief is meaningless, right and wrong are not absolute and therefore cannot actually exist... Everything breaks down to nothing if we do not have a basis for belief. Those who disbelieve absolute truth cannot logically prove anything (without absolute truth we cannot have truth at all only levels of 'untruth' and baseless belief).

Is this a reasonable statement?

Discuss!


Peace.

Outside of Jesus Christ as the standard for morality, all you have is a bunch of opinions. And when you're dealing with opinions instead of absolute truth, everyone has the option to do whatever he wants without feeling guilty because everyone has set their own idea of what is/is not moral.

But it doesn't work that way. There is absolute truth that never changes. If there were a sliding scale for what truth is...if it were dependent upon what people thought or felt...it wouldn't be absolute truth.

Jesus Christ is Absolute.

 

[Phred]

I do not see how there can be a basis for morality without an underlying fundamental (or perhaps, "foundational") belief in something.

I believe other human beings are worthy of my concern just for being human. No deity necessary.

If we are simply random chance

We are not.

and of no greater value then animals all things are permissible,

Ridiculous. If you found out tomorrow that there was no such thing as god... would you suddenly rape kids and eat your relatives?

evolution teaches that animals, rape, eat their young and the stronger rules all that are weaker by force; as we are simply animals this is also acceptable for humanity

.
The Theory of Evolution teaches no such thing. Ignorant Christians with no clue as to what science is preach this nonsense.

When we observe nature, we see creatures acting in ways that we find nasty. Hamsters eat their kids. "Rape?" Whatever... Natural Selection says that the orgainism that is most likely to reproduce will. By doing so they will pass their genes on to another generation. Those who do not reproduce will NOT pass their genes on. The rules apply to humans as well.

Reality becomes open to interpretation and personal belief takes the place of absolute truth.

You're talking about religion, not science. Truth is data. It's the things we observe and measure. Interpreting reality is what religionists do. They see things and attribute them to gods.

Law is meaningless,

Ridiculous. Scientific laws become meaningless with gods running around negating them upon a whim. Human laws are meaningful as long as there are humans to understand them. Without humans, there are no laws from "god".

belief is meaningless,

Evolution has no bearing upon your fantasies at all.

right and wrong are not absolute and therefore cannot actually exist...

Right and wrong are never absolute. That's a fantasy religionists have.

Everything breaks down to nothing if we do not have a basis for belief.

Perhaps you fall apart as a human being without being able to believe a deity someplace has set standards for you... I don't.

Those who disbelieve absolute truth cannot logically prove anything (without absolute truth we cannot have truth at all only levels of 'untruth' and baseless belief).

Data is truth. No need for deity. Your interpretation of the universe is one based in ignorance and refusal to credit yourself with the intelligence to divine your own morality.

.
​

 

[HouseApe]

Without a religious viewpoint does it make logical sense to subject ones self to any form of law or order, other then when compelled at the risk of losing ones existence?

Have you ever noticed that social primates (apes, monkeys, etc...) that live in the same groups rarely randomly kill each other or steal from each other? Why is that? It is because they, and we, have evolved to have strong social bonds that preclude these behaviours. Humans, chimps, & gorillas can not live in nature alone, unlike tigers. We would die. We need each other so we evolved emotions like love, empathy and a sense of fairness to keep our social units intact. The point here is that morality is genetic, it does not come from any religion. It is why humans of all religions or none, and social animals all have generally the same moral values. Understand though that because genetics is complex and to some degree random, some individuals do not properly share the bonding emotions. We call them sociopaths. Also as long as we exclude some people from our social group (Al-Qaeda terrorists for example) we feel free to exclude them from our moral benevolence and kill them with little remorse. Notice that Japan is probably the least religious nation, and has the fewest crimes.

Without a religious viewpoint can anything have intrinsic value other then the most basic atoms and genes (building blocks) that make up everything in existence?

The only thing that has intrinsic value is life itself, because without it nothing else possibly can. Suppose there is a God, and this God chose not to create any life. What has intrinsic value?

Why would one conform to any law other then the law of the jungle, why would one love (its only chemicals in your brain)?

See comments above, you have no choice but to love even it is just chemicals in your brain.

I am asking does a world without god actually compute? Can logical reason exist without an absolute basis

Of course. Outside of mathematics, humans can never truely know any absolutes. Suppose the Bible is the word of God. Look at how many denominations of Christianity differ in their interpretations. You see, even with God their are no absolutes. With humans, their can only be subjectivity. Science has pushed God outside of the physical universe. There are no more guaranteed miracles. The red sea doesn't part, people don't walk on water. We understand weather patterns, earthquakes and disease as natural phenomena. God is only left in the prayers and hearts of those who desparately want to believe in one.

God is not necessary for morality. God is necessary for immortality and divine retribution. But you can only hope to find that after death, and I am pretty darn sure you won't.

 

[Zaac]

I believe other human beings are worthy of my concern just for being human. No deity necessary.

But based upon what? Why is that your belief? What if someone else says it's their belief that other humans are not worthy of your concern just for being human? Who is right and who is wrong?

Yes, you both have opinions. But there exists absolute truth that settles the issue.

Ridiculous. If you found out tomorrow that there was no such thing as god... would you suddenly rape kids and eat your relatives?

Some folks would even though they know right from wrong. And absent a God of absolute truth having written the truth on the heart, a lot more folks probably would.

Your analogy in of itself says exactly why people have no excuse. People don't have to be a Christian to know that there is right and wrong placed inside of us. That moral measure came from God Himself.

We just tend to ignore it when it doesn't allow us to do what we want to do.

It's just like people who say they are atheists. They aren't atheists. They are just too intelligent for their own good. They have the law within them, but choose to rationalize it away so that they can do what they want to do.

You're talking about religion, not science. Truth is data. It's the things we observe and measure. Interpreting reality is what religionists do. They see things and attribute them to gods.

Truth is not truth because we observe it and measure it. It would still be truth if we did NOTHING.

Ridiculous. Scientific laws become meaningless with gods running around negating them upon a whim. Human laws are meaningful as long as there are humans to understand them. Without humans, there are no laws from "god".

God didn't need humans to have a law. In the beginning was the Word. That Word is the law. It proceeded man and doe not rely on the existance of man. That's why His truth is absolute. It is. It always was. It always will be.

Right and wrong are never absolute. That's a fantasy religionists have.

Right and wrong are ALWAYS absolute. It's our understanding and rationalizing that isn't absolute. There is not a single thing in God's Word that has ever been disproven as false. Why? Because it's absolute. There is not a single command or principle within that has ever been shown not to hold. Why? Because His truth is absolute. It's perfect. It contains everything that it needs.

Unlike our opinions and our development of scientific laws, His Word does not need defending. It is what it is. And no amount of people rationalizing to make truth subjective will ever change His truth from being absolute truth.

Perhaps you fall apart as a human being without being able to believe a deity someplace has set standards for you... I don't.

1 Corinthians 1:18 "For the word of the Cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God."

Data is truth.

Data ain't truth. Truth is data. If I told you that there are 500 million people in the United States, would that make it true just because it's data?

Your interpretation of the universe is one based in ignorance and refusal to credit yourself with the intelligence to divine your own morality.

I am never amazed how, just like satan, so many people want to be God.

 

[Lokisdottir]

Why does morality need to be set in stone? I may be a theist nutter but I'd still rather see people talk, debate, discuss, and arrive at their own conclusions about right and wrong, rather than relying on their religion to hand them all the answers.

 

[Zaac]

Why does morality need to be set in stone?

Morality is not cast in stone. But what morality is based upon is. And because so many people want to make what they base their morals upon subjective, we are a world in chaos.

You can't have everybody doing their own thing and have order. There will ineveitably be conflict. Chaos, like, sin is borne out of selfishness and our belief that we can do whatever we want if it's right for us and does not affect anyone else.

I may be a theist nutter but I'd still rather see people talk, debate, discuss, and arrive at their own conclusions about right and wrong, rather than relying on their religion to hand them all the answers.

Of course you would . So would satan. That way it remains debatable, and what God says is wrong doesn't necessarily have to be wrong.

Goodness. People have been trying to justify wrong as right for all time. They want to be God. Fortunately for all, that will never happen.

And fortunately for all, an All-Knowing God did not concern Himself with what sinful men would rather see, but went ahead and let what always was truth, always be truth.

 

[Shane Roach]

Data is truth.

"Godel had established that there were limits to math and logic. The aim of Gottlob Frege, David Hilbert and Russell to create a unitary deductive system in which all mathematical (and therefore all logical) truth could be deduced from a small number of axioms could not be realized. It was, in its way, and as was hinted at above, a form of mathematical uncertainty principle - and it changed math for all time. Furthermore, as Roger Penrose has pointed out, Godel's 'open ended mathematical intuition is fundamentally incompatible with the existing structure of physics.'"

"Added to the uncertaintly principle, his theory described limits to knowledge. Put alongside all the other advances and new avenues of thought, which were then exploding in all directions, it injected a layer of doubt and pessemism. Why should there be limits to our knowledge? And what did it mean to know that such limits existed?"

-Peter Watson, The Modern Mind, Harper Collins Publisers, 2001.

No sir. Data is not truth. It must be correctly interpreted, and the existence of a mathematical explanation is not proof that it is a true explanation.

 

[Shane Roach]

Of course. Outside of mathematics, humans can never truely know any absolutes.

See above.

 

[Shane Roach]

Have you ever noticed that social primates (apes, monkeys, etc...) that live in the same groups rarely randomly kill each other or steal from each other? Why is that? It is because they, and we, have evolved to have strong social bonds that preclude these behaviours. Humans, chimps, & gorillas can not live in nature alone, unlike tigers. We would die. We need each other so we evolved emotions like love, empathy and a sense of fairness to keep our social units intact. The point here is that morality is genetic, it does not come from any religion.

Two things. First off, there has been no systematicly established study that I know of that quantifies and proves that social interactions are inherently beneficial for the passing on of genes. In fact, there is no study I am aware of that even tries to establish rates of speciation vs rates of extinction or to note whether or not there is really any such thing as a natural force towards diversity in living organisms. Secondly, to willy nilly associate love, empathy and so forth with genetics without a hard and fast genetic explanation for the experience of them in the consciousness and will is untenable.

It is why humans of all religions or none, and social animals all have generally the same moral values.

This is flatly false. There are societies with exact opposite sets of values, even mutually exclusive sets of values.