• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Morals Without God

Beth

Philosopher
Beth
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
5,598
An interesting article at the NY Times http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/17/morals-without-god/

Here are some quotes that may spark interest
Don’t think for one moment that the current battle lines between biology and fundamentalist Christianity turn around evidence. One has to be pretty immune to data to doubt evolution, which is why books and documentaries aimed at convincing the skeptics are a waste of effort. They are helpful for those prepared to listen, but fail to reach their target audience. The debate is less about the truth than about how to handle it. For those who believe that morality comes straight from God the creator, acceptance of evolution would open a moral abyss.
Click to expand...
Science is not in the business of spelling out the meaning of life and even less in telling us how to live our lives. We, scientists, are good at finding out why things are the way they are, or how things work, and I do believe that biology can help us understand what kind of animals we are and why our morality looks the way it does. But to go from there to offering moral guidance seems a stretch.
Click to expand...
what would happen if we were able to excise religion from society? I doubt that science and the naturalistic worldview could fill the void and become an inspiration for the good. Any framework we develop to advocate a certain moral outlook is bound to produce its own list of principles, its own prophets, and attract its own devoted followers, so that it will soon look like any old religion.
Click to expand...
 
what would happen if we were able to excise religion from society? I doubt that science and the naturalistic worldview could fill the void and become an inspiration for the good. Any framework we develop to advocate a certain moral outlook is bound to produce its own list of principles, its own prophets, and attract its own devoted followers, so that it will soon look like any old religion.
Click to expand...

I believe this would only be the case if you tried to create a framework that has to keep advocating all the silly Christian 'virtues' that we currently have. As far as I can see, it is perfectly possible to base society around nothing but reason and a general sense of empathy (which is inherent to us anyway, and requires no religion). And that wouldn't look like religion at all.
 
Clearly we can't be moral without God. Without him, how would we know that we're supposed to kill gay people, beat our wives, stone adulterers, own slaves, or not eat shellfish? :p
 
Last edited:
what would happen if we were able to excise religion from society? I doubt that science and the naturalistic worldview could fill the void and become an inspiration for the good.
Click to expand...
Two unsupportable underlying premises:

1) Religion is a source of inspiration to be good.
2) We need inspiration to be good.
 
My question would be: What is the ultimate morality?

From what I can see, your choice at the end comes down largely to two options: You die quickly, violently, brutally, painfully, or you die slowly, silently, degraded, and painfully. The only thing in common is pain, and even when I'm not facing death, that's not something I appreciate very much.

I'd start there.
 
Sophronius said:
I believe this would only be the case if you tried to create a framework that has to keep advocating all the silly Christian 'virtues' that we currently have. As far as I can see, it is perfectly possible to base society around nothing but reason and a general sense of empathy (which is inherent to us anyway, and requires no religion). And that wouldn't look like religion at all.
Click to expand...

I think his point had to do with his perspective on human nature and what he feels would likely occur, not that it would be required by the system.
 
For those who believe that morality comes straight from God the creator, acceptance of evolution would open a moral abyss.
Click to expand...
This alone suggests the article is not worth reading.
 
This is one of a six part series, but I think Matt covers the topic of godless morality quite well:

 
Last edited:
Beth said:
I think his point had to do with his perspective on human nature and what he feels would likely occur, not that it would be required by the system.
Click to expand...

And his point of view is that we need fairy tales to keep the masses from misbehaving. How insulting. How dishonest.

However, if Homo sapiens needs religion--the denial of reality--in order to remain viable, then I welcome our eventual extinction. Maybe evolution, will come up with a sentient lifeform intelligent enough to NEVER conceive of invisible sky tyrants to survive.
 
Last edited:
I hate the " no morality without god" line.

First off, a real world deterant is much more effective than a vieled threat from an invisible grandfather. Case in point, how many catholics eat meat on fridays ( or use birth control, or do any number of the other silly things the church is against)? Now contrast this with the amount of people that commit assault and i think you will see what i am getting at.

Second, i can and have been able to accurately explain my moral positions without invoking a god at any point. And so can many many other unbelievers, this is simple proof that the point is just wrong.
 
Heinlein proposed that morality derives from Survival; behavior ensures the greatest amount of survival, is thusly the most moral. Essentially, it would scale up from self-preservation on the low end, to "women and children first", and ultimately things which encourage the survival of the species or life itself.

Consequently, "God" factors into this not at all.
 
I doubt that science and the naturalistic worldview could fill the void and become an inspiration for the good.
Click to expand...
Religion doesn't fill the void now, so what's to loose by getting rid of it?

On the griping hand, people who think this life is all they get are less likely to want to spend it in a prison.
 
You know, it gets me kinda thinking. (Which should be your warning it's going to be long and convoluted.)

I was reading recently about gated communities. See, apparently the crime drops right after installing a fence around the neighbourhood, which gets everyone convinced that it's working, but then it slowly gets right right back. People still have to get in and out, including pizza delivery, plumbers, etc, so it's not like it actually creates a perfectly isolated world where just the properly white and upright residends are ever found. So burglars too eventually figure out they can get in.

Worse yet, the ones who do occasionally get to lose time getting in are ambulances and the like. They can't just lift the ambulance or squad car and jump over the fence with it.

So basically you'll still get your **** stolen, and you might die of a heart attack too while the ambulance crew is trying to get someone to open the gate.

But that's just the setup. The interesting part is something else.

Because of the _assumption_ that it works, people basically imagine that the world outside their gates is actually even worse. They actually get anxious when they have to drive outside that fence, because, really, if there's all this crime here where we're all fenced and protected, can you imagine how bad it is outside? They must be mugging and raping each other on every corner.

The illusion of that protection actually makes life scarier. There's actually almost as much crime inside as outside, but because you have to assume that the fence actually does something, you end up assuming that it's so much worse outside it than it really is.

So it gets me thinking of religion.

All those people thinking their religion is what gives morals. (Except for the fact that it doesn't, and even they themselves pick and follow just the rules that already fit their moral compass, i.e., just the rules they'd follow anyway.) But if even with religion you still have all this crime and injustice and plain old mean people, and you have (to maintain) an illusion that it actually does something at all... can you imagine how bad it must be without it?

We essentially have the same setup as that fence and gate. The assumption that it must do something just makes the world outside scarier.

Can it be that that's why they're so scared of atheists?
 
Phrost said:
Essentially, it would scale up from self-preservation on the low end, to "women and children first", and ultimately things which encourage the survival of the species or life itself.
Click to expand...

He's got that exactly backwards. I'm the only one of me there ever was or ever will be. As a completely unique individual, my safety, security, and happiness is paramount. My wife and kids come next, because they are also unique and special, but in extremis I can find another mate and make more kids. at the far lowest end, "the species" and life itself are valuable inso much as they serve my needs.
 
HansMustermann said:
You know, it gets me kinda thinking. (Which should be your warning it's going to be long and convoluted.)

I was reading recently about gated communities. See, apparently the crime drops right after installing a fence around the neighbourhood, which gets everyone convinced that it's working, but then it slowly gets right right back. People still have to get in and out, including pizza delivery, plumbers, etc, so it's not like it actually creates a perfectly isolated world where just the properly white and upright residends are ever found. So burglars too eventually figure out they can get in.

Worse yet, the ones who do occasionally get to lose time getting in are ambulances and the like. They can't just lift the ambulance or squad car and jump over the fence with it.

So basically you'll still get your **** stolen, and you might die of a heart attack too while the ambulance crew is trying to get someone to open the gate.

But that's just the setup. The interesting part is something else.

Because of the _assumption_ that it works, people basically imagine that the world outside their gates is actually even worse. They actually get anxious when they have to drive outside that fence, because, really, if there's all this crime here where we're all fenced and protected, can you imagine how bad it is outside? They must be mugging and raping each other on every corner.

The illusion of that protection actually makes life scarier. There's actually almost as much crime inside as outside, but because you have to assume that the fence actually does something, you end up assuming that it's so much worse outside it than it really is.

So it gets me thinking of religion.

All those people thinking their religion is what gives morals. (Except for the fact that it doesn't, and even they themselves pick and follow just the rules that already fit their moral compass, i.e., just the rules they'd follow anyway.) But if even with religion you still have all this crime and injustice and plain old mean people, and you have (to maintain) an illusion that it actually does something at all... can you imagine how bad it must be without it?

We essentially have the same setup as that fence and gate. The assumption that it must do something just makes the world outside scarier.

Can it be that that's why they're so scared of atheists?
Click to expand...

I think you've got something there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom