Is belief in god a virtue?

[yomero]

Why do theists and deists think that belief in god is a virtue? I have discussed this with some family members who still believe, but haven't received an adequate answer.

This forum may not be the best place to ask this question. It appears that most members are atheists or agnostics. But there are some believers, several of them capable of sustaining a respectful debate with intelligent comments.

Many wise persons profess to have faith in god. Their intelligence should make obvious the fallacies contained in any of the supposed proofs offered for the existence of god, such as St. Anselm's ontological argument, the argments from first cause, or from design, or Pascal's wager, etc. Yet they cling to their belief as a child does to his favorite blanket. Why? The main reason that I can think of is the feeling that believing in god is a virtue in itself, a morally right act. Aren't they awere that it is an ethically neutral position? Is it intellectual dishonesty?

I am an atheist, a 6 on Dawkins' belief scale (a 6.99, if you allow decimals). I have noticed that after "shrill" or "strident", the most common accusation against atheist is "arrogant". Perhaps we sometimes act with an air of intellectual superiority. Believers could respond to my objection with "we think you are evil, but you think we are stupid." I hope this discussion doesn't fall to a you too exchange.

I know that atheist will be posting their comments here. What is your position on this? Do you have any arguments I could use when debating my acquaintances?

Some forum members are very knowledgeable in theology and philosophy, but many of us aren't. Perhaps the use of everyday language could make yor observations accesible to the rest of us.

I wasn't sure about the spelling of tu quoque. That is why I wrote you too instead.

 

[Manopolus]

There are several beliefs held in deistic religions which explain the phenomenon in question. One is that the infusion of the spirit of God provides one with a clear moral understanding that a person would not otherwise have access to. Another is that without God, there is no basis for a moral code.

Both arguments are invalid, of course... there is no evidence whatsoever of the first, and it can be shown quite readily that many people who hold no deistic beliefs whatsoever posess a fairly rigorous standard of ethical conduct, whether we completely agree on the particulars or not.

 

[CriticalSock]

People get scared. They're scared by the dark, by thunder, by the unknown and by death. This is true no matter how intelligent you are. God is the result of that fear. Religion is the exploitation of that fear.

 

[kuroyume0161]

People get scared. They're scared by the dark, by thunder, by the unknown and by death. This is true no matter how intelligent you are. God is the result of that fear. Religion is the exploitation of that fear.

It is not virtuous to be exploited or to fear. Virtue is going into the unknown with your eyes open and your brain active so as to discover the known.

 

[Cainkane1]

Why do theists and deists think that belief in god is a virtue? I have discussed this with some family members who still believe, but haven't received an adequate answer.

This forum may not be the best place to ask this question. It appears that most members are atheists or agnostics. But there are some believers, several of them capable of sustaining a respectful debate with intelligent comments.

Many wise persons profess to have faith in god. Their intelligence should make obvious the fallacies contained in any of the supposed proofs offered for the existence of god, such as St. Anselm's ontological argument, the argments from first cause, or from design, or Pascal's wager, etc. Yet they cling to their belief as a child does to his favorite blanket. Why? The main reason that I can think of is the feeling that believing in god is a virtue in itself, a morally right act. Aren't they awere that it is an ethically neutral position? Is it intellectual dishonesty?

I am an atheist, a 6 on Dawkins' belief scale (a 6.99, if you allow decimals). I have noticed that after "shrill" or "strident", the most common accusation against atheist is "arrogant". Perhaps we sometimes act with an air of intellectual superiority. Believers could respond to my objection with "we think you are evil, but you think we are stupid." I hope this discussion doesn't fall to a you too exchange.

I know that atheist will be posting their comments here. What is your position on this? Do you have any arguments I could use when debating my acquaintances?

Some forum members are very knowledgeable in theology and philosophy, but many of us aren't. Perhaps the use of everyday language could make yor observations accesible to the rest of us.

I wasn't sure about the spelling of tu quoque. That is why I wrote you too instead.

Only if the God is venus. Male Gods are awful.

 

[Waterman]

Why do theists and deists think that belief in god is a virtue? I have discussed this with some family members who still believe, but haven't received an adequate answer.

In my opinion it is not beleifs that are to be considered virtuous but actions. Though to answer the question posed. I agree with the Manopolus, I think that many see it that by by beliveing in god that they will gain the necessary insight into what is vituous behavior and thus the 'act' of believing itself gets wrapped up in that package.

'By believing I become virtuous.'

(that is not MY belief though)

 

[Cainkane1]

Why do theists and deists think that belief in god is a virtue? I have discussed this with some family members who still believe, but haven't received an adequate answer.

This forum may not be the best place to ask this question. It appears that most members are atheists or agnostics. But there are some believers, several of them capable of sustaining a respectful debate with intelligent comments.

Many wise persons profess to have faith in god. Their intelligence should make obvious the fallacies contained in any of the supposed proofs offered for the existence of god, such as St. Anselm's ontological argument, the argments from first cause, or from design, or Pascal's wager, etc. Yet they cling to their belief as a child does to his favorite blanket. Why? The main reason that I can think of is the feeling that believing in god is a virtue in itself, a morally right act. Aren't they awere that it is an ethically neutral position? Is it intellectual dishonesty?

I am an atheist, a 6 on Dawkins' belief scale (a 6.99, if you allow decimals). I have noticed that after "shrill" or "strident", the most common accusation against atheist is "arrogant". Perhaps we sometimes act with an air of intellectual superiority. Believers could respond to my objection with "we think you are evil, but you think we are stupid." I hope this discussion doesn't fall to a you too exchange.

I know that atheist will be posting their comments here. What is your position on this? Do you have any arguments I could use when debating my acquaintances?

Some forum members are very knowledgeable in theology and philosophy, but many of us aren't. Perhaps the use of everyday language could make yor observations accesible to the rest of us.

I wasn't sure about the spelling of tu quoque. That is why I wrote you too instead.

Atheists do act with an air of arrogance. We learned it from the religious biggots we have to deal with from time to time. We get it honestly. Atheists ask questions and we get poor answers. This would cause arrogance in a lot of those cases. My reaction to some of the beliefs have been a expression of disbelief at what I just heard and a reply "you believe in THAT?" When a believer is asked a question the answer is "we can't know all things" or "God will answer all questions". I like the first response the best because at least they admit they don't always know what they are talking about. Its similar to an atheist answer to the question "how did we get here"? Scientists and especially laymen atheists sure don't have all the answers but at least we try to do better than Goddidit.

Believing in anything without proof is bad.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

FWIW, from the perspective of some Christians, merely believing is empty of meaning or virtue if not accompanied by "works" or actions reflecting that belief. There are other Christians who feel that faith alone is sufficient, quoting a different bit of scriptural doctrine. I fall on the side of James in this matter.

Put another way, if you don't walk the walk, talking the talk is just a lot of noise

DR

 

[Trent Wray]

If your actions are "virtuous", then believe in whatever you want, imo. So long as you are enjoying your life.

I think in general, though, believers view it as virtuous (even when it involves murdering, raping, etc) because it shows they are willing to live by and die for a belief that is "greater than themselves". It's like fighting for a cause, and it also promotes "giving something a chance," that is irrational. Hope, faith, etc.

 

[Denver]

Maybe this is a little derailifying, but the concept of 'virtue' can vary by society, philosophy, etc. So the answer of whether and why belief is a virtue can have different answers. In an environment akin to a theocracy, to believe may be as obvious a virtue as not stealing or lying. To not believe would be like spitting on society, or dishonoring (perhaps putting in danger) your family.

In ours, a type of a virtuous believer that perhaps everyone has heard is the little old church lady, always kind, devout, peaceful, gentle, gives what she can to the poor, etc. Whether or not this person actually exists is not the point: it is one picture of how someone in our culture might relate 'belief' to 'virtue'.

And WHY a person believes can also connect belief to a virtue, or not. To say you believe when you don't, isn't a virtue. To believe out of fear or habit, also doesn't sound very virtuous. To believe because your own evidence prompts you to believe, doesn't sound virtuous (though it sounds reasonable). To believe because you feel you are obeying a loving supreme being and you want to help others around you via that, does start to sound virtuous.

 

[yomero]

There are several beliefs held in deistic religions which explain the phenomenon in question. One is that the infusion of the spirit of God provides one with a clear moral understanding that a person would not otherwise have access to. Another is that without God, there is no basis for a moral code.

Both arguments are invalid, of course... there is no evidence whatsoever of the first, and it can be shown quite readily that many people who hold no deistic beliefs whatsoever posess a fairly rigorous standard of ethical conduct, whether we completely agree on the particulars or not.

That's what I can't understand, how an intelligent and otherwise rational person can believe those arguments. Besides there being no evidence to support either of them, I have one other objection. I'll try to explain:

I hold that an act is intrinsically virtuous or not in itself. We become aware of this by our own means. If god had decreed that genocide is good, any rational mortal would reject such edict. But god can not possibly ordain that such immorality is good. In that case, god has to be consistent with an ethical code that is outside himself. Morals do not emanate from him, they come from somewhere else. Our own brain, I think.

 

[Manopolus]

That's what I can't understand, how an intelligent and otherwise rational person can believe those arguments. Besides there being no evidence to support either of them, I have one other objection. I'll try to explain:

I hold that an act is intrinsically virtuous or not in itself. We become aware of this by our own means. If god had decreed that genocide is good, any rational mortal would reject such edict. But god can not possibly ordain that such immorality is good. In that case, god has to be consistent with an ethical code that is outside himself. Morals do not emanate from him, they come from somewhere else. Our own brain, I think.

Agreed. This is obvious to those of us which do not hold such a belief system.

Unfortunately, those who have had such a belief system indoctrinated into them since birth cannot quite grasp the concept of what their lives would be like lacking such a belief until they actually discard it.

I think in the case of converted religious folks, it often has to do with a wrongly assumed relationship between their own behavior prior to the Theistic conversion and Atheism in general. For many, their search for more meaningful lives have led them to religion, and they fail to realize that ethical thought does not specifically rely on religion. They only know that religion LED them to their current ethical standpoint.

In the second case, I base my thesis in part on many cases of conversions that I have heard involving recovery from a drug addiction. Of course, many of the paths used for recovery actually suggest the acceptence of a higher power of some sort, so such things are common.

(added) As I understand it, a belief in a higher power actually DOES help in recovery from drug and alcohol problems, and I see two reasons why this might be the case. (1) A belief in and expression of religion stimulates the production of a certain natural chemical cocktail consisting of things which certain addictions deprive you of (I think dopamine, for one is involved here, but I'm not a neuroscientist). (2) An acceptance of an ultimate authority figure can enforce behaviors which might otherwise not have sufficient motivation.

 

[Minarvia]

# the quality of doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong
# merit: any admirable quality or attribute; "work of great merit"
# morality with respect to sexual relations
# a particular moral excellence

I picked that up from a quick google. I don't see god as a requirement for virtue, tho, definitions or not. I do think living your life, not harming others, and doing good when you can is pretty virtuous. Taking overt pride in performing virtuous acts would be arrogance and not being sincere. So I think sincerity has to be in there for virtue.

 

[Complexity]

No. Belief in 'god' is not a virtue.

 

[yomero]

Here is a good example of believers' moral blindness regarding the worship of god:

Exodus 32:1-35 narrates how Moses came down from Mt. Sinai to find his people adoring a golden calf. Waxing in anger, he destroys the tables with the comandments and orders the Levites to take a sword to kill brother, friend and neighbor. They murder aprox. 3000. The Lord blesses the tribe of Levi. Moses reproaches the survivors (not the homicidal Levites) with the words: " You have comitted a great sin". He climbs up the mountain again to tell god: "Oh, what a great sin these people have comitted. They have made themselves gods of gold". Moses asks for forgiveness for his people, and god, great guy that he is, agrees. But he must still punish them with a plague.

I searched in Google to see what interpretation believers give to this episode. In none of the Christian or Jewish links I read (more than 15) did anyone think that if there was a very wicked and sinful act, it was the murder of 3000 humans. It should be obvious that this is a far more grievous sin than erecting a statue. The consensus seems to be that this episode is admirable since it attacks idolatry. I was surprised to notice that Judaic sites were the worst.

 

[Radrook]

Whether it's a virtue or not depends on what the particular belief motivates the person to do.
If the belief violates human rights as defined by the international community of nations then it is a vice. If it motivates a respect for those universal human rights as outlined by the United Nations, then the belief is as virtue.

 

[D'rok]

Whether it's a virtue or not depends on what the particular belief motivates the person to do.
If the belief violates human rights as defined by the international community of nations then it is a vice. If it motivates a respect for those universal human rights as outlined by the United Nations, then the belief is as virtue.

Did you just refer to a secular source of morality as a measuring stick for religion? Yes you did.

Progress, methinks.

 

[Radrook]

Did you just refer to a secular source of morality as a measuring stick for religion? Yes you did.

Progress, methinks.

It works both ways.
Any religion worth its salt must be in complete harmony with universal human rights and any secular source of morality worth its salt must never contradict a religion which encourages the respect for those rights. The rights are independent of both religious and secular sources. They are based on the condition of beiing human.

 

[D'rok]

It works both ways.
Any religion worth its salt must be in complete harmony with universal human rights and any secular source of morality worth its salt must never contradict a religion which encourages the respect for those rights. The rights are independent of both religious and secular sources. They are based on the condition of beiing human.

Ah. Ye olde natural rights argument. Unfortunately, rights are socially constructed, not discovered in nature. They are privileges granted, not truths revealed. That makes them more important rather than less. We constructed them ourselves for ourselves to further our own flourishing.

But putting that aside, whatever the source of human rights, they are utterly incompatible with significant portions of Christian scripture. Unless you think genocide and slavery are somehow compatible with human rights? Does that mean Christianity isn't worth its salt?

 

[Radrook]

Ah. Ye olde natural rights argument. Unfortunately, rights are socially constructed, not discovered in nature. They are privileges granted, not truths revealed. That makes them more important rather than less. We constructed them ourselves for ourselves to further our own flourishing.

But putting that aside, whatever the source of human rights, they are utterly incompatible with significant portions of Christian scripture. Unless you think genocide and slavery are somehow compatible with human rights? Does that mean Christianity isn't worth its salt?

Not according the the stipend of the United Natiuons and the USA Constitution. the rights are inelienable, innately deserved by virtue of our common humanity. Such rights were always present though not recognized. Once recognized, however during the European Age of Enlightment, they have been the cornerstone for most modern democracies.



I agree that morality varies from society to society, cultural relativism they call it. However, there are definite universal rights as outlined by the United States Constitution and by the United Nations which are universally recognoized as legitimate. It's these rights which are used to determine when nations or people are behavinbg in a manner deservinbg negative sanctioning via embargoes, imprisonment, of military intervention.. Such rights are also used to determine when crimes against hjumanity have been committed during. You know, such as the crimes committed under Nazi Germany. If indeed we insist on adhering to the sophist idea that there is nor right or wrong, then these heinous atrocities of genocide against defensless people could not be judged either right nor wrong. Or if a woman is gang raped, then we would be forced to say that it is morally neutral. Or if someone breaks into your house and steals all your belongings, well, that too would have to be considered morally neutraL. In short, all attempts to deter crime could be argued away as unjustified.


Btw
Courses in ethics recognize the existence of human rights.


As to Christianity, it doesn't teach its followers to enslave or kill others. If I am wrong--please show me where it teaches that.