Just like for a house to be good (to serve its purpose well) it must have a solid foundation and a strong framework, for a man to be good (ie. moral) he must also have a solid foundation and a strong framework. Our framework is the values we live by. Our foundation is what these values are based on.
Too many people [wrongly] believe that without God there can be no objective moral standards. Nothing could be further from the truth. As the Natural Philosophy demonstrates, the values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom can very simply and elegantly be derived from Nature itself. Therefore, belief in God is entirely unnecessary if we want to be good.
But what about those who don't really want to be good? Wouldn't belief in God benefit those people, so at least they don't harm others or themselves? The truth is that belief in God is not necessary for such people either. Understanding nature and the Natural Values would be much more beneficial for them, because they would realize that being good, and acting in accord with the natural values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom is actually in their best interest.
So if we go back to the house analogy, the natural values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom provide a strong framework for a moral life, while Nature provides the solid foundation.
But how about belief in God? Wouldn't belief in God provide a foundation that is on par with - if not better than - nature? We can believe that God is watching us at every moment, so even if we have the desire to steal, or lie we know that we'll get punished for it in the end. Isn't that a much better foundation for a moral life? Doesn't the Bible or Quran provide a strong framework for a moral life?
Well, there are some very serious problems with such view. First, we have no evidence that either the Bible or Quran were indeed authored, or even inspired by God. These are mere assumptions believers must take on faith, without anything to support such claims. Second, scientific errors and historic inaccuracies in the Bible and Quran make it difficult to accept these books as the infallible word of God. Believers must live with these contradictions, which means that the framework they chose to live by is really not that strong after all. Third, even if we were to ignore the evident scientific and historic errors, but still fully accept these books for our moral guidance, we would have to embrace some values and precepts that are morally reprehensible. For example, the idea that men shall rule over women (Genesis 3:16), or that disobedient children should be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).
But here is the most important reason why belief in God cannot provide a solid foundation for morality, and that is: doubt. If we base our morality on belief in God, the moment we start doubting the existence of God is the moment our entire value system begins to crumble. If we base our morality on belief in God, the moment we stop believing in God we can no longer hold on to our religious values. The problem is that we cannot not doubt. We are constantly presented with new evidence that challenge our beliefs. If we choose to ignore all evidence we become ignorant and blind to the world around us. Blind faith cannot be a good foundation for morality. And since there is no evidence to support or deny the existence of God, doubt is all we can really do. Basing our morality on the foundation of belief in God is like building a foundation on quicksand. The same cannot be said about Nature. Nature is a solid foundation for morality. This is because nature does not require our belief in it. It simply exists. It is real. And "reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" (Philip K. Dick)
____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom
Too many people [wrongly] believe that without God there can be no objective moral standards. Nothing could be further from the truth. As the Natural Philosophy demonstrates, the values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom can very simply and elegantly be derived from Nature itself. Therefore, belief in God is entirely unnecessary if we want to be good.
But what about those who don't really want to be good? Wouldn't belief in God benefit those people, so at least they don't harm others or themselves? The truth is that belief in God is not necessary for such people either. Understanding nature and the Natural Values would be much more beneficial for them, because they would realize that being good, and acting in accord with the natural values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom is actually in their best interest.
So if we go back to the house analogy, the natural values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom provide a strong framework for a moral life, while Nature provides the solid foundation.
But how about belief in God? Wouldn't belief in God provide a foundation that is on par with - if not better than - nature? We can believe that God is watching us at every moment, so even if we have the desire to steal, or lie we know that we'll get punished for it in the end. Isn't that a much better foundation for a moral life? Doesn't the Bible or Quran provide a strong framework for a moral life?
Well, there are some very serious problems with such view. First, we have no evidence that either the Bible or Quran were indeed authored, or even inspired by God. These are mere assumptions believers must take on faith, without anything to support such claims. Second, scientific errors and historic inaccuracies in the Bible and Quran make it difficult to accept these books as the infallible word of God. Believers must live with these contradictions, which means that the framework they chose to live by is really not that strong after all. Third, even if we were to ignore the evident scientific and historic errors, but still fully accept these books for our moral guidance, we would have to embrace some values and precepts that are morally reprehensible. For example, the idea that men shall rule over women (Genesis 3:16), or that disobedient children should be stoned to death (Deuteronomy 21:18-21).
But here is the most important reason why belief in God cannot provide a solid foundation for morality, and that is: doubt. If we base our morality on belief in God, the moment we start doubting the existence of God is the moment our entire value system begins to crumble. If we base our morality on belief in God, the moment we stop believing in God we can no longer hold on to our religious values. The problem is that we cannot not doubt. We are constantly presented with new evidence that challenge our beliefs. If we choose to ignore all evidence we become ignorant and blind to the world around us. Blind faith cannot be a good foundation for morality. And since there is no evidence to support or deny the existence of God, doubt is all we can really do. Basing our morality on the foundation of belief in God is like building a foundation on quicksand. The same cannot be said about Nature. Nature is a solid foundation for morality. This is because nature does not require our belief in it. It simply exists. It is real. And "reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away" (Philip K. Dick)
____________________
Natural Philosophy of Life offers a simple, elegant, and powerful alternative to religious dogma. This philosophy has a firm foundation in nature, science, and reason, and it is centered on the core values of honesty, generosity, equality, and freedom
Last edited:
Sorry. 
