This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
No god = No Morality?
Recently, and reasonably frequently, there are claims made by some very thoughtful people that without god or without religion there would be no absolute morality and human civilisation risks sliding into survival of the fittest.
For someone like me who assumes all the law giving gods are man made and so are the religious laws - we have always managed to develop morality ourselves anyway. Perhaps human morality is a mix of instinct, cultural and experiential programming and reason. I include religion in the programming part.
But there is still the question would an end to traditional religions remove a pillar in society that improves the human condition.
For the more religious, I guess you had better hope you have the right god and right interpretation and right set of divine laws.
Also if a god gave us a conscience, this seems to work more or less with or without belief in any particular deity or dogma. You may be a good person but might not get to heaven.
So would the decline of traditional religion shift us towards survival of the fittest? No.
1) Atheists can be as good or evil as believers
2) Some religious laws are immoral from the perspective of equality, freedom, and improving the human condition. We would be better without these.
3) Religion had thousands of years to address slavery, race and sex equality, sanctity of life and has not done well. The enlightenment drove these forward.
4) During the reign of religion we have had more wars, murder compared to now - as the grip of religion has decreased.
5) Where we see religious fundamentalism we often see more violence. The most devout are often the most dangerous.
6) USA one of the most religious first world countries in the world with a huge rate of gun crime, murder, imprisonment compared to less religious western nations.
7) We owe much of our more civil societies to enlightenment values of equality, freedom
We have a sound basis for morality without god. We don't need god to value life.
Closing Statement from Obey No1kinobe
Thanks all.
The key takeaways for me are:
(a) Many people believe that if god given absolute rules are taken away then anything goes. This seems to be a key teaching in Christian circles.
There is a lot of confusion here. Many think they know who god is and what his rules are. Somehow they ignore or explain away that there are many gods and conflicting god given rules. What if you have the wrong god, wrong rules, or there is no god. The certainty is sad to see.
Also, it is just a human definition that whatever god does is moral and what he says is moral is the absolute. If god punishes us in hell it is moral. If god asks us to smite neighbouring tribes it is moral. If god floods the world and kills nearly everyone including innocent babies it is moral. Original sin passed from generation to generation is moral.
This is similar logic to that used in the Nuremberg trials. It was only a war crime if the allies didn't do it.
We are gods play things his creation his rules. You can not challenge them. Well we can. We can judge these rules and gods actions and see some are good, some are silly and some are downright cruel. You might believe these are the rules, but how can you say they moral other than by definition.
(b) That if religion fades as a morality indoctrinator, we may lose some of the nasty medieval rules, but need to be sure we put energy into living moral lives, guiding our kids, and supporting a moral society.
I suggest we invented the gods and their rules, we can build on these and secular foundations in the future without gods
I have to disagree. Firstly there are so many different conflicting beliefs on what absolute morality is. It simply does not exist in this simplistic form.
Lorraine, all I can say is I don't think personal revelation, however profound is a sound basis for absolute morality. There have been many revelations and they don't all agree. It might work for the individual but don't claim it is the ultimate truth.
Imagine if
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.
Kevin Tinholt
I dare not say that religious believe is ignorance, just because I don't believe in it. Because in philosophy there is no single truth, only practices that have become the standard.
We can even argue that we, we human beings, have become gods ourselves. Surely, we haven't become immortal entities, but who says god is such? But we can play with live and death, even within our own species.
I do think religion has some fundamental value, especially as they are the basis/ origin of today's institutions. Nothing will change that, or we need a new age of enlightenment. Though I wouldn't look at religion per se when talking about societies problems.
1) Agreed
2) Last time I checked there was no solid definition, but yes they do oppose some of our laws. Especially when we want to give everyone equal opportunities.
3) Even within the boundaries of rationality some of these subjects would still not be dealt with. So the enlightenment might not be the best candidate for defense, not to mention that most of the thinkers were pro-slavery if it helped the common good. I think this has more to do with deviant benevolence as it was a logical step at the time (political or economical).
4) The kingdom of god is within all men, not a within a single men, but within all men. It would be wrong to blame religion for it, because then you'd be as wrong as the so called prophets which did exactly the same. However, I agree that it does provide us with a scapegoat, which is just wrong.
5) ^See above^
6) Though if we look at the economical condition of the population as a whole it could be compared to an underdeveloped country.
7) Name 4 national institutions/societies without religious roots.
Obey No1kinobe 50+
3. I see the development and implementation of enlightment values as a process, and perhaps not the end of the process but a big step from relying on the bible.
Civil rights in the US for example only got addressed in the 1960's.
Same with Australian Aboridgines getting the vote.
Decriminalisation of homosexuality in the 1970's etc.
4. Values and individual human implemention are 2 aspects, intertwined.
I'm not using the crusades etc or despot popes as eveidence that relgion is the key driver for all evil in the paste.
I'm just pointing out it does not seem to be any better deterent than those living by say humanist values.
Also atheist individuals can be as evil as any pope or god king.
6 - good point.
Kevin Tinholt
So let us say we do change the mindset of humanity, one towards progress in science and civilization. What do you think the effect are?
Obey No1kinobe 50+
It just a process helps us find out about the universe. Still lots of gaps.
Maybe we don't need any specific ideology.
I'm not affiliated with anything in particular.
But maybe one or several may help guide us.
I agree humans are remarkable in that you can be a geologist, pass exams based on millions of years in one part of your life and belief the world is 6000 years old in another.
Science is not an ideology or a movement.
Humanism is a bit closer to that.
Life without religion. I'll need to ponder that.
I guess my focus here is just to argue that if religion died out in a country of natural causes we would not automatically end up with anarchy.
Like you said, we have the rule of law etc. Regardless of the beliefs of the originators, the system of law is in place. The bill of rights etc not going anywhere. There will still be prisons and moral delemmas.