No RELIGION = No MORALS?

[Atheologian]

This is a topic I'm sure has been done before, but I'd like to specify that this is not asking your opinion of what the morals should be. For Instance, I'm not interested in the event that, without Christianity, there would be gay marraige in America. That's merely a show of your moral position. I want to know, In the absence of religion, would we still be able to form notions of what was good and bad for society. Whether or not you would agree with those notions, is moot. This is the idea behind the zeitgeist, or spirit of the times, that presents itself as the present standard of what is accepted socially and what is not. Would this zeitgeist, not to be confused with a "holy spirit", they are not the same, still exist without religion?

 

[Atheologian]

The idea here is that, considering what we know about science and the origin of life, assuming we can set our own standards for what is moral, without the need for a deity and it's commandments, hasn't God outlived his usefulness?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I view and regard "life's lessons" as the standard on which our behavior is based and not that of any religion, so people will act accordingly whether there is a presence of religion or not.

 

[Atheologian]

I view and regard "life's lessons" as the standard on which our behavior is based and not that of any religion, so people will act accordingly whether there is a presence of religion or not.

I think "life's lessons" go hand in hand with the zeitgeist. If it weren't for human beings learning from mistakes, we'd have no way to test those morals and decide what is "right" or "wrong".
That's 2 for human integrity, 0 for religion.
Who thinks we'd revert to cavemen were a priest not around to tell us how to live?

 

[SHANMAC]

I guess I'm a bit confused from your OP. Are you asking whether people would act morally at this day and age if religion were taken away? If this is your question, I'd say that the moral framework, which comes from God, already has been established and therefore certainly could go on for some time.

Or, are you asking whether people would act morally if there was no God/religion to begin with? If this is your question, I'd say that it's an impossible question to answer because we have no idea what type of "morals" or knowledge of right from wrong humans would have when born. If there was no God, would humans be moral? Would there be humans at all? No idea.

That being said, if you ask me to assume that there is no God and that humans are born with the same faculties, intellect and mental capcity as we have right now, I'd have to say that they certainly could act morally.

 

[Atheologian]

I think both answers are valid here.

 

[Atheologian]

As an atheist, I would not have thought to make the distinction, simply because I don't regard the loss of religion and the absence of religion as very different. However, in a world where religion is still mainstream, they certainly are. I apologize and I will clarify the topic question.
Now the question is really a question of either situation. I'm interested to know how many people make that distinction.

 

[linwood]

Would this zeitgeist, not to be confused with a "holy spirit", they are not the same, still exist without religion?

I think so.

We would have just shrouded it with some completely different form of myth than religion.

Which might have been better...I dunno.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I view and regard "life's lessons" as the standard on which our behavior is based and not that of any religion, so people will act accordingly whether there is a presence of religion or not.

Conscience.

Because unlike animals humans have a conscience.

For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the laws to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused....wrote the apostle Paul.

So unless a conscience has become hardened or calloused like flesh from a branding Iron it can serve as a guide.

 

[Atheologian]

I think so.

We would have just shrouded it with some completely different form of myth than religion.

Which might have been better...I dunno.

I'd like to imagine a world where we didn't have to do that. What if we didn't replace it with myth? Consider a world where the myths were replaced with knowledge.

 

[Atheologian]

Conscience.

Because unlike animals humans have a conscience.

For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the laws to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them and, between their own thoughts, they are being accused or even excused....wrote the apostle Paul.

So unless a conscience has become hardened or calloused like flesh from a branding Iron it can serve as a guide.

Good point, but I think Paul meant that as more of a way to say, the law of God lives in us all, you have no excuse. Couldn't those laws very well exist in the minds of men without the presence of a "God"?

 

[linwood]

I'd like to imagine a world where we didn't have to do that. What if we didn't replace it with myth? Consider a world where the myths were replaced with knowledge.

I understand and sympathize but I don`t see how knowledge could come before myth.

Myth is easy and fast.
Knowledge is difficult and slow.

People want an answer RIGHT NOW!!
Not later.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The idea here is that, considering what we know about science and the origin of life, assuming we can set our own standards for what is moral, without the need for a deity and it's commandments, hasn't God outlived his usefulness?

According to Genesis we can more than assume that we can set our own standards for what is moral. By disobeying God Adam broke away God rule and set up rule by man, or people rule, because he took the law into his own hands by his actions. Adam thus became self-determining in the choosing of what is moral, etc.

Adam chose independence from his Creator, and since that free-will choice was given to Adam, then Adam could exercise his choice and he did.

Isn't it independence from the Creator that has outlived its usefulness?
Independence has not brought peace, health, and harmony on earth.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Good point, but I think Paul meant that as more of a way to say, the law of God lives in us all, you have no excuse. Couldn't those laws very well exist in the minds of men without the presence of a "God"?

Where did conscience come from? Why didn't conscience develop in the animal world?

 

[DavyCrocket2003]

If you removed God from the equation, morality would still exist. God is not the source of moral law. He just knows it really really well and is empowered by his understanding. God isn't good because he's great, he's great because he's good. If God weren't around to help us, we would have a much harder time of it. But the truth would still be there. Good and evil would still exist. And we would be bound to obey the laws or suffer the consequences.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I'd like to imagine a world where we didn't have to do that. What if we didn't replace it with myth? Consider a world where the myths were replaced with knowledge.

Imagine.

John Lennon asked us to imagine a world of peace.
Jesus Christ asked us to imagine a world of peace that only the humble meek would inherit when he referred to Psalm 37.

Imagine a world where religion that has run amok playing false to God and Jesus would no longer exist. Then there would be peace on earth and peace toward men of goodwill.

 

[Atheologian]

According to Genesis we can more than assume that we can set our own standards for what is moral. By disobeying God Adam broke away God rule and set up rule by man, or people rule, because he took the law into his own hands by his actions. Adam thus became self-determining in the choosing of what is moral, etc.

Adam chose independence from his Creator, and since that free-will choice was given to Adam, then Adam could exercise his choice and he did.

Isn't it independence from the Creator that has outlived its usefulness?
Independence has not brought peace, health, and harmony on earth.

and religion has?

 

[Atheologian]

Where did conscience come from? Why didn't conscience develop in the animal world?

who says it did not?? Wolves are a great example of this. Wolves that abuse others, or refuse to hunt, are exiled from the pack. The "Morals" or "Conscience" of the pack prevents lazy or aggressive wolves from harming the overall good of the pack.

 

[Atheologian]

I understand and sympathize but I don`t see how knowledge could come before myth.

Myth is easy and fast.
Knowledge is difficult and slow.

People want an answer RIGHT NOW!!
Not later.

Very true, myth is easier than knowledge. This is the tragedy of life.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

God is not the source of moral law.

From early on man came to know God not merely as a bountiful provider but a God holding to definite standards in both conduct and practice. God's creative works were 'very good' why? Wasn't it because of meeting God's perfect standards in all aspects?

Without standards how could one judge with any degree of accuracy what is right or wrong? Man's accomplishments are pale in comparison with standards in nature. The universe, constellations, orbits of planets, cell structure, etc., are astounding in standardization as found in nature. Such standardization makes possible to recognize and classify plants, fish, birds, etc. in minute detail. Standardization in the human body lets physicians know where to look.

From the beginning man saw stability in day and night, gravity, etc. so doesn't it stand to reason that man also learned the moral standard for marriage from early on in what Genesis (2:4) says?

If the Creator is not the source of moral law, then who is?
Isn't God the law giver of the standard for the universe?
Man as creation then is subject to not only physical laws but capable of reasoning spiritually as well as morally. Isn't God the source of spirituality?
The physical laws can not be broken, and one that goes against or contrary to physical laws experiences immediate reactions. Likewise, moral laws can not be circumvented or violated with impunity. Although breaking natural or moral laws might not bring immediate consequences, but one reaps what one sows.
Since God is Creator of all things, then how could he not also be the source of morals?