do morals need a god?

[Dunemeister]

Sure it does, if you believe morals come from religion, then what happens when you take religion away? No morals. So if you learned today that there was no god and all religion is wrong, then you would have no reason not to rape and murder your family.

I may not have a reason not to rape and murder, but it doesn't follow that I would have the inclination to do so. Having a conscience means that you know what is right and wrong; it also means caring. Even if I don't believe in God, I might know what is right and wrong and I might care.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I may not have a reason not to rape and murder, but it doesn't follow that I would have the inclination to do so. Having a conscience means that you know what is right and wrong; it also means caring. Even if I don't believe in God, I might know what is right and wrong and I might care.

So are you saying even without a god you'd still be a good person, because you care about other people?

 

[Kenect2]

But if our conscience doesn't put us in touch with moral truth, what's the point in having the debate?

One might say the point is that we still have to live together, so we have to decide which system is best for us. But there's the rub. What do we mean by "best"? Is there any truth to the question whether any particular system is "best", even "best for us"? Again, probably not. At least, if there is a best, there's no reason to think that our conscience will put us in touch with the answer.

Dunemeister, you've twice mentioned the idea of "our conscience putting us in touch" with either "moral truth" or "the answer." What exactly do you mean by "our conscience putting us in touch" with something?

 

[Kenect2]

So if you learned today that there was no god and all religion is wrong, then you would have no reason not to rape and murder your family.

Going to prison seems like a good reason, absent deity, to not commit those crimes.

And what about a philosophically mature commitment to respecting Human rights?

 

[Scott C.]

so my questions is does morals require a god to be a role model of what your morals should be, or should your 'heart' lead your moral code?

Without God, your 'heart' just pumps blood. It does not lead in a moral direction. It's God that leads us in a moral direction and we call this guiding influence our 'heart'. This is true since God exists and is independent of whether He is believed in or not.

 

[ragordon168]

I may not have a reason not to rape and murder, but it doesn't follow that I would have the inclination to do so. Having a conscience means that you know what is right and wrong; it also means caring. Even if I don't believe in God, I might know what is right and wrong and I might care.

So are you saying even without a god you'd still be a good person, because you care about other people?

which roughly translates to 'morals do not require god' they are a uniquely human aspect and are nothing divine

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Morals are a normal part of evolution.
Just think about it for a second.
If we as species had not developed moral behaviour, then we would have already been extinct.
Do you really think a species where rape, pillaging and stealing is considered "good" would survive the day?

Obviously not.
Which is the simple explanation why we have morals.
Anthropic principle:
If it were not so we wouldnt be here to ask.

God is not required.

 

[SHANMAC]

The reason we have survived as a species is due to the morals instilled within us by God. Evolution does not explain the source of morality.

 

[challupa]

Morals are a normal part of evolution.
Just think about it for a second.
If we as species had not developed moral behaviour, then we would have already been extinct.
Do you really think a species where rape, pillaging and stealing is considered "good" would survive the day?

Obviously not.
Which is the simple explanation why we have morals.
Anthropic principle:
If it were not so we wouldnt be here to ask.

God is not required.

Exactly and some one saw a way to exploit that and make the breaking of these commonsense guidelines punishable by an unseen being where you would spend eternity suffering if you broke any of these guidelines turned "commandments". It's a very good way to have power over people, but it's not about God.

 

[SHANMAC]

Exactly and some one saw a way to exploit that and make the breaking of these commonsense guidelines punishable by an unseen being where you would spend eternity suffering if you broke any of these guidelines turned "commandments". It's a very good way to have power over people, but it's not about God.

Where did these "commonsense guidelines" come from? It sounds like you believe morals are innate. It sounds like Thereisnospoon believes morals are to a large extent learned. If they are innate, how did they get there? If they are learned, doesn't it make them arbitrary?

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

The reason we have survived as a species is due to the morals instilled within us by God. Evolution does not explain the source of morality.

Of course it does.
The chances of survival are of course greater if a species can form groups and unite for common causes.
Your ideas about God are a postulation and do not actually explain anything.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

If they are learned, doesn't it make them arbitrary?

What do you mean by "arbitrary"?
You mean we could just as well have developed the morals of rapists and killers?
As i said this is not really plausible for such morals would not likely yield a society as result.

 

[Dunemeister]

So are you saying even without a god you'd still be a good person, because you care about other people?

I can't be sure. I DO know that the degree to which I care about people improved exponentially since my conversion. So something about my faith in God did improve who I was as a person. All I can say is that being an atheist does not entail being a degenerate.

 

[Dunemeister]

Dunemeister, you've twice mentioned the idea of "our conscience putting us in touch" with either "moral truth" or "the answer." What exactly do you mean by "our conscience putting us in touch" with something?

You can think of it on analogy with sight. My sight puts me in touch with the external world of objects. Analogously, my conscience puts me in touch with the world of moral "objects" or truths. I'm making an epistemological claim. Our conscience is what allows us to know what is morally permissable, prohibited, obligatory, and so on. This conscience can be fostered or hindered depending on education and culture, but it is a capacity we all are born with.

 

[Smoke]

at a recent debate i attended between a humanist and a christian the issue pf morality came up several times. the christian members of the audience couldn't wrap their minds around a set of morals that didnt involve a 'big brother' watching over them.

Christians (and others) often think of morality in terms of following the rules. Naturally, if you have such an impoverished view of life, you need an authority to give you the rules.

However, I haven't noticed that having such a set of morals induces people to behave any better.

 

[Dunemeister]

which roughly translates to 'morals do not require god' they are a uniquely human aspect and are nothing divine

No, it just means that we are created in the image of God and therefore have a conscience. Our belief in God (in the sense that "God" is part of the furniture of our belief system) is in this sense irrelevant. Faith in God, however, is entirely relevant to the content and force of one's moral commitments.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Faith in God, however, is entirely relevant to the content and force of one's moral commitments.

I wonder how you think this to be true.
You might have made the experience that you think you are more moral or a better person after conversion. Thats fine.
I however have more than enough examples of the exact opposite.

PS: Don't forget the apes

 

[Dunemeister]

I wonder how you think this to be true.
You might have made the experience that you think you are more moral or a better person after conversion. Thats fine.
I however have more than enough examples of the exact opposite.

PS: Don't forget the apes

Well, I admit that it's my religion rather than anything approaching social science that leads me to say this. But since I think my religion's more or less true....

Edit: More detail. All humankind is fallen. That means our abiltiy to perceive moral truths and to care about them has been deeply compromised. By conversion (which means more than simply adding "God" or "Jesus" to your set of beliefs), part of this aboriginal damage is repaired. This doesn't entail perfection by any stretch.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Well, I admit that it's my religion rather than anything approaching social science that leads me to say this. But since I think my religion's more or less true....

Of course.
What amazes me however in that statement is the following (i have the same issue with for example young earth creationists speaking about "it is written in the bible..."):

I would say that God (if we assume that he exists) would reveal himself using a method that does not require blind faith. At least not in all aspects.
So i would assume that if God reveals himself and if for example God stated that morals only came from him, then your above statement would read that you do NOT bring forth your arguments solely based on your religion but that these arguments actually would find a reflection in social science.

I think/believe/claim that a true revealing God would in any case give us a truth that we could at least in great parts verify to be true independend of the religious scripture and faith.

 

[Dunemeister]

I would say that God (if we assume that he exists) would reveal himself using a method that does not require blind faith. At least not in all aspects.

Well, it'd doesn't really matter what we say, does it?

So i would assume that if God reveals himself and if for example God stated that morals only came from him, then your above statement would read that you do NOT bring forth your arguments solely based on your religion but that these arguments actually would find a reflection in social science.

Social science tells us what is, not what ought to be.

I think/believe/claim that a true revealing God would in any case give us a truth that we could at least in great parts verify to be true independend of the religious scripture and faith.

Quite presumptuous, don't you think?