Religion and morals

[Arn]

I constantly see Christians around the web saying:

Without God/Religion there are no morals!

To quote one occasion:

When you say that "anyone who takes an innocent life is wrong" you are invoking an OBJECTIVE MORAL standard (...)
You possess this sense of Morality my friend, because we do live in a universe with a very real Creator who is the
foundation for OBJECTIVE MORALstandards. If you truly embrace atheism then you have no basis for rendering a
judgment on what is right or wrong

So... I need god to know right and wrong?

Let's investigate:


Let's say I have the chance to kill a nice Jesus-loving guy, and no one will ever find out about who did it.
The reason doesn't matter (sleeping with my wife, money, revenge. pick one)

If I'm religious, I believe he'll go to heaven, and actually I'd really be doing him a favor taking his life. Because heaven sure beats earth.
But if I'm an atheist and kill the same guy, I believe that that's it. He'll be gone forever and I just stole his only life.

But, the religious me, believes that now I'm going to hell for what I did.
The atheist me believes that nothing has changed.

So the religious me wouldn't really kill him, because of fear. Fear of hell and eternal damnation.
The morals that are invoked are the morals of society. Killing someone is simply not accepted among people today.
The morals of the bible are simply reflections of the morals of society that existed during the time that the book was written.

And the atheist me (real me) wouldn't do it either. Because I believe that a man has only one life, and without it, he has nothing.
Even though death inevitably will come, I have no right to give it to him early. Everyone on this planet is so lucky to even
be alive in the first place, so it is such a shame to steal this amazing chance that they have been given.

Life is holy and you should try make it as enjoyable as possible, for yourself, and as many of your fellow living souls as possible.
Before it ultimately ends.

These are my morals and I personally think that they beat the bible in quite some places:

For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD.
Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
Exodus 35:2

Better kill my uncle then.

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
Leviticus 18:22

I better not choose to become gay like all homosexual people did then.

anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him.
Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.
Leviticus 24:16

Oh I'm off to kill me some gay people!


The point is,
you do not need religion to be a good person,
or to know the difference between right and wrong.

[Lord Romanus III]

I'm going to enjoy this thread. I called SigniferOne out on this in another thread, although I do see flaws in your reasoning.

So the religious me wouldn't really kill him, because of fear. Fear of hell and eternal damnation.

A good argument: fear supplants actual morality as the sole reason for why they would not kill someone. But you are merely proposing it and you should expand on it.

The morals that are invoked are the morals of society. Killing someone is simply not accepted among people today.

Why? Why is it not accepted?

The morals of the bible are simply reflections of the morals of society that existed during the time that the book was written.

Somewhat, but you forgot to mention the location of that society.

[XIII]

I'm going to enjoy this thread.

Agreed. So am I.

What's interesting, to me, is that the OP never offers a meta-ethical theory whereby he can justify his belief in the objectivity of his moral system. Rather what OP does is to 'pass the buck', so to speak, and instead attacks Christian Morality in childlike fashion: "Well, what about Christianity?"

The caveat is that he cannot do that without a meta-ethical theory! Not convincing at all.

[Justice and Mercy]

I'm an atheist, but I disagree with you profoundly.

And the atheist me (real me) wouldn't do it either. Because I believe that a man has only one life, and without it, he has nothing.
Even though death inevitably will come, I have no right to give it to him early.

Oh yeah? Why not?

How do you, as an atheist, justify the concept of "rights?"

The point is,
you do not need religion to be a good person,
or to know the difference between right and wrong.

How do you, as an atheist, decide what makes a person "good?"

[(s)AINT]

Religion really has no right to say what is moral and what is ethical given their track record.

The idea that religion has a monopoly on morals is complete and utter horse piss.

[chriscase]

Agreed. So am I.

What's interesting, to me, is that the OP never offers a meta-ethical theory whereby he can justify his belief in the objectivity of his moral system. Rather what OP does is to 'pass the buck', so to speak, and instead attacks Christian Morality in childlike fashion: "Well, what about Christianity?"

The caveat is that he cannot do that without a meta-ethical theory! Not convincing at all.

I'm not sure we really need one. If we proceed from an empirical perspective, and observe what principles seem to govern actual behavior, it seems to me that we ought to be able to discern patterns of judgment that can be categorized. For the most part, I'd expect these categories to line up with various laws and moral codes, a common denominator likely being what sorts of rules enable a society to function.

When we demand an absolute authority or abstract basis for morality, we simply push all the difficulty and ambiguity out onto that authority, which tends to add more questions than it answers.

[Squiggle]

I'm not sure we really need one. If we proceed from an empirical perspective, and observe what principles seem to govern actual behavior, it seems to me that we ought to be able to discern patterns of judgment that can be categorized. For the most part, I'd expect these categories to line up with various laws and moral codes, a common denominator likely being what sorts of rules enable a society to function.

When we demand an absolute authority or abstract basis for morality, we simply push all the difficulty and ambiguity out onto that authority, which tends to add more questions than it answers.

What is moral is not a question of what allows society to function [to x end].

[chriscase]

What is moral is not a question of what allows society to function [to x end].

Maybe not in the immediate sense, but that's not what I said.

If I like hamburgers, I can name things that I think make a good hamburger: flavor, texture, moisture, temperature, appearance, composition, etc. Some of these preferences are likely derived from a biological inheritance of reactions to food that is nourishing and unlikely to make me sick. Does that mean that the experience of eating a delicious hamburger is nothing more than a simple assessment of nutrient content? Of course not. But the experience is layered, founded on some physiological reactions that very likely have a material basis in nutrition and health. Do you see the difference?

Now someone might posit that my hamburger experience requires the existence of an ideal, perfect hamburger. But why would anyone really accept this? Now granted, I can imagine this perfect hamburger, but does it really exist? The notion seems a bit silly. Yet a hamburger idealist of the absolutist variety would insist that, unless the perfect hamburger exists a priori, the deliciousness of my hamburger is nullified. Further, this position would hold that, if I speculate my experience of deliciousness is based on comparison with other hamburgers (and perhaps this perfect hamburger does not exist), I may as well slap a turd on a stale slice of bread and shove it down my throat.

[Squiggle]

Maybe not in the immediate sense, but that's not what I said.

If I like hamburgers, I can name things that I think make a good hamburger: flavor, texture, moisture, temperature, appearance, composition, etc. Some of these preferences are likely derived from a biological inheritance of reactions to food that is nourishing and unlikely to make me sick. Does that mean that the experience of eating a delicious hamburger is nothing more than a simple assessment of nutrient content? Of course not. But the experience is layered, founded on some physiological reactions that very likely have a material basis in nutrition and health. Do you see the difference?

Now someone might posit that my hamburger experience requires the existence of an ideal, perfect hamburger. But why would anyone really accept this? Now granted, I can imagine this perfect hamburger, but does it really exist? The notion seems a bit silly. Yet a hamburger idealist of the absolutist variety would insist that, unless the perfect hamburger exists a priori, the deliciousness of my hamburger is nullified. Further, this position would hold that, if I speculate my experience of deliciousness is based on comparison with other hamburgers (and perhaps this perfect hamburger does not exist), I may as well slap a turd on a stale slice of bread and shove it down my throat.

Ok your analogy doesnt work at all and merely shows your complete ignorance as to what morality is actually conceived as, which is an ought. Something we ought to do, without an objective basis there is no ought. So completely unakin to your little analogy, if the ideal doesnt exist, nor does the burger itself.

[chriscase]

Ok your analogy doesnt work at all and merely shows your complete ignorance as to what morality is actually conceived as, which is an ought. Something we ought to do, without an objective basis there is no ought. So completely unakin to your little analogy, if the ideal doesnt exist, nor does the burger itself.

People are faced with many decisions on a daily basis. Numerous considerations go into the assessment of what "ought" to be done, as well as whether past decisions were "right". There is your hamburger, and its existence is undeniable.

[mw2xboxplayer]

The point is,
you do not need religion to be a good person,
or to know the difference between right and wrong.

I agree. Morality has nothing to do with any "Holy Law" from God, it is simply a reflection of the socially acceptable behavior at the time from a select culture.

Here's an example of where religion/God would not create "moral" behavior: If a person was an atheist and had never heard of Christianity, but had acted in conformance to Christian morals, where had he acquired such morals?

[Arn]

I'm not going to mindlessly defend my post, because you are right that there are flaws.
You guys gave like a bazillion more thoughts to process, my brain hurts from thinking about this too much!
FFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUU


Maybe what I was trying to get to is that some religious people don't see that there already
are morals of society. It's from these morals that we base our perception of "right and wrong".
That is why a lack of religious belief does not result in a lack of morals.

[XIII]

Maybe what I was trying to get to is that some religious people don't see that there already are morals of society. It's from these morals that we base our perception of "right and wrong". That is why a lack of religious belief does not result in a lack of morals.

And no one denies that actually. The question that every moral system has to answer is what grounds the objectivity of our moral systems?

Paul Kurtz puts this succintly:

“The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns this ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor
anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?”

- Paul Kurtz, Forbidden Fruit, 65.

Now, before you can even begin to indict the Old Testament for moral depravity, I need to know your 'meta-ethical' theory through which you know, for a fact, that God's purported actions were, in fact, immoral. What grounds the objectivity of your moral system that enables you to condemn supposedly immoral actions?

[Lord Romanus III]

And no one denies that actually. The question that every moral system has to answer is what grounds the objectivity of our moral systems?

Paul Kurtz puts this succintly:

“The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns this ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor
anchored in some transcendent ground, are they purely ephemeral?”

- Paul Kurtz, Forbidden Fruit, 65.

Now, before you can even begin to indict the Old Testament for moral depravity, I need to know your 'meta-ethical' theory through which you know, for a fact, that God's purported actions were, in fact, immoral. What grounds the objectivity of your moral system that enables you to condemn supposedly immoral actions?

It don't think the argument is so much as to why our system is objective (it is not), but rather, why your God has so blatantly ignored the moral code that he expects you to live by. My next question for you is this: If god is the source of your morals, aren't they subjective to god? They are always subjective to someone or something, in the end. And I don't think that the supposed creation of this universe by him still makes him the source of objectivity.

[Lord Romanus III]

It don't think the argument is so much as to why our system is objective (it is not), but rather, why your God has so blatantly ignored the moral code that he expects you to live by. My next question for you is this: If god is the source of your morals, aren't they subjective to god? They are always subjective to someone or something, in the end. And I don't think that the supposed creation of this universe by him still makes him the source of objectivity.

XIII, I directed that at you. I think you missed it, on accident.

[Hilarion]

I'm not going to mindlessly defend my post, because you are right that there are flaws.

Sorry, if you make a claim you have to defend it, otherwise this entire thread is a waste.

Let's say I have the chance to kill a nice Jesus-loving guy, and no one will ever find out about who did it.
The reason doesn't matter (sleeping with my wife, money, revenge. pick one)

If I'm religious, I believe he'll go to heaven, and actually I'd really be doing him a favor taking his life. Because heaven sure beats earth.

No, killing someone is not doing them a favor in any religion that I am familiar with.

But if I'm an atheist and kill the same guy, I believe that that's it. He'll be gone forever and I just stole his only life.

But, the religious me, believes that now I'm going to hell for what I did.
The atheist me believes that nothing has changed.

Yes.

So the religious me wouldn't really kill him, because of fear. Fear of hell and eternal damnation.

That religion revolves around fear is an interesting popular misconception. Maybe one promulgated by the popularization of the "fire-and-brimstone" sermon. In any case it's a tremendous generalization (especially when you try to apply it to the umbrella term of "religion", much less Christianity LOL).

The morals that are invoked are the morals of society. Killing someone is simply not accepted among people today.

If something isn't popularly accepted does that mean it's morally wrong for the individual?

The morals of the bible are simply reflections of the morals of society that existed during the time that the book was written.

Really? So people in Roman times loved their enemies? Another "interesting" idea...

And the atheist me (real me) wouldn't do it either. Because I believe that a man has only one life, and without it, he has nothing.
Even though death inevitably will come, I have no right to give it to him early. Everyone on this planet is so lucky to even
be alive in the first place, so it is such a shame to steal this amazing chance that they have been given.

Life is holy and you should try make it as enjoyable as possible, for yourself, and as many of your fellow living souls as possible.
Before it ultimately ends.

Okay it sounds nice, but incredibly vague and without justification. Why is life holy? Why should I make life enjoyable for other people? And what is meant by enjoyable? Sensual pleasure, material success, what? Are there boundaries to making life "enjoyable," and if so, why do they exist?

These are my morals and I personally think that they beat the bible in quite some places:

Better kill my uncle then.

I better not choose to become gay like all homosexual people did then.

Oh I'm off to kill me some gay people!

This is not a validation of your own morality, this is an unoriginal red herring. But I'll take the opportunity to ask why you should not kill your uncle or homosexuals.

The point is,
you do not need religion to be a good person,
or to know the difference between right and wrong.

Please explain then, what is the difference between right and wrong? What does it mean to be good and what does it mean to be bad? And why?

[The Dude]

The only ground religious people have for calling their morality absolute is the fact that we either give that statement enough credibility to warrant a debate, or concede to it. It should be plenty evident from real life that even religious morality does not keep anyone from doing anything. Criminals and immoral people will come from all walks of life, and if anyone thinks that it matters the slightest bit if someone who committed rape is going to some fictional hell or not then they are deluding themselves. The crime has been committed, the harm has been done, whatever you believe comes next is of no consequence unless it happens right here, right now, in our imminent existence.

In the end religious people can call their morality whatever they want. They are entitled to their illusion that their morality is true morality because this illusion is entirely inconsequential. It's a non-issue.

[SigniferOne]

It should be plenty evident from real life that even religious morality does not keep anyone from doing anything. Criminals and immoral people will come from all walks of life

Although I could give you a thousand testimonials, from the Western Civilization being more moral than anyone in history, the Bibles transforming hardened criminals to tears, Christianity transforming barbarian hairy 11th raiders into 17th century gentlemen, the single America being more charitable than the whole world put together, and countless others, the simple fact of threads like this is that we're treating the question in an academic manner, without regard to actual or past implementations, in abstract theory of necessities and consequences.

In the end religious people can call their morality whatever they want. They are entitled to their illusion that their morality is true morality because this illusion is entirely inconsequential. It's a non-issue.

You know, the forum is for discussing and debating arguments, not a platform for splashing one's views out into the open with indifference to engaging rationally on their behalf. The latter is usually called trolling....

[Carle]

Although I could give you a thousand testimonials, from the Western Civilization being more moral than anyone in history, the Bibles transforming hardened criminals to tears, Christianity transforming barbarian hairy 11th raiders into 17th century gentlemen, the single America being more charitable than the whole world put together, and countless others, the simple fact of threads like this is that we're treating the question in an academic manner, without regard to actual or past implementations, in abstract theory of necessities and consequences.

Funny you should mention that. America is a Secular Nation founded by deist freethinkers. Jefferson rewrote the Bible into a secular biography of Christ (The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, aka the Jefferson Bible) and referred to a "wall, or hedge, of separation" between Church and state, among other things. ALso, the 1st Crusade sacked Jerusalem and killed ~30000 people. Look up Thomas Paine; the emirate of Cordoba, and Saladin; King Asoka and algebra.
Christian Europe was, for the most part, backwards.

You know, the forum is for discussing and debating arguments, not a platform for splashing one's views out into the open with indifference to engaging rationally on their behalf. The latter is usually called trolling....

Your beliefs are unsubstantiated.

[mw2xboxplayer]

No, killing someone is not doing them a favor in any religion that I am familiar with.

Why not? If the afterlife is so much better than life on Earth; who wouldn't want to die and go straight to Heaven? Especially if your life on Earth has been miserable.

That religion revolves around fear is an interesting popular misconception. Maybe one promulgated by the popularization of the "fire-and-brimstone" sermon. In any case it's a tremendous generalization (especially when you try to apply it to the umbrella term of "religion", much less Christianity LOL).

Religion revolving around fear is the entire reason it was "invented" by man. They did not understand the world around them, so they created gods and religion to make sense of everything. The fear of pain, death and suffering in hell has also been a main factor contributing to Christian belief, especially in the 5th to 15th centuries. If you did not repent and buy church indulgences, then eternal suffering awaited you after death.

If something isn't popularly accepted does that mean it's morally wrong for the individual?

Morality varies between cultures, a drastic example would be a comparison of Catholic morality and Aztec morality. Christian morality say it is a sin to kill, the Aztec morality says killing makes the sun rise and your crops grow. The moral "correctness" depends on the culture that is judging the individuals actions.

Really? So people in Roman times loved their enemies? Another "interesting" idea...

This statement was a part of Jesus' many guidelines that needed to be followed for a ticket to Heaven. Most people at the time (Like they do now.) wanted religious assurance that they would go to the afterlife, and following the guidelines presented by the "Son of God" sounds like a surefire way to get to Heaven.

Okay it sounds nice, but incredibly vague and without justification. Why is life holy? Why should I make life enjoyable for other people? And what is meant by enjoyable? Sensual pleasure, material success, what? Are there boundaries to making life "enjoyable," and if so, why do they exist?

Emotional and physical pleasures are what make life "enjoyable". Each stimulant that brings such 'enjoyable pleasure' differs from person to person. One answer cannot be applied to everyone regarding what makes them "happy".

Please explain then, what is the difference between right and wrong? What does it mean to be good and what does it mean to be bad? And why?

That would depend on the culture's socially acceptable behavior. Again with the Aztec/Christian morality comparison: Christian morality say it is a sin to kill, the Aztec morality says killing makes the sun rise and your crops grow. The moral "correctness" depends on the culture that is judging the individual's actions.