Morality without religion
 

This is a question I have asked myself over and again...If there is no God, how can you explain morality?

I understand the reasons why religious people are moral, but what's in it for atheists?

Altruism and survival are universally opposed to one another. These concepts of "good" and "evil" are religious by nature. What's in it for the Darwinian mindset to be "good"? What happened to survival of the fittest? How is helping the old and infirm add to our society? What is the void that love fills? Why monogamy? It seems to me that those who expouse an atheistic belief structure are limiting the growth of their personal individualism by playing by the rules of the religious.

In other words...if no God, then no final judgement. Who are you trying to please by living a moral life? Why amper your self with "feel-good" tenets? Sure, society has dictated laws and rules, but these came from religion. Even the nicest of farmers cull their herd.

Personally, I believe in God, and I live by those beliefs (if imperfectly), but I don't see why those that don't believe would care. What's the point really?

I think we all know, there is more than just the individual, but why would an atheist show traits of morality?

And when answering, remember, "right" and "wrong" and " good" and "bad" are the concepts I'm trying to elucidate. Be more specific when counterpointing.

I think the reason why I follow by what is right or wrong because if I don't follow what is right or wrong for the religious, I get penalized for it. I get people looking at me differently, speaking harshly behind my back, hell stabbing me in the back. I lose the ability to possibly get a job, and live my life the way that I want it. Even though I'm not religious, doesn't mean that I don't respect someone elses life(one of the religious laws). Hell, I probably respect it more then most religious people because they are afraid of what that person represents or what they know. Why do I believe in Monogomy? I know that polygomy works for some people. For me, I'm a jealous person. I wouldn't be able to stand sharing, or being shared. As scary as it sounds, I'd like to live a normal life, and if I didn't follow your( or other religious peoples believes, then I'd not be able to live my life to what I enjoy.
The morals that you say are inspired by religion work for me. I've tried going against the grain enough in my life. Sure it's fun some times, but I'm growing up and respecting other people and their things.

Re: Morality without religion
 

Not necessarily true. Even in some animal species, it's been shown that altruistic behavior can actually enhance the chances of survival for the individual who practices it. And in a species with as complex a social structure as humans, looking out only for your own survival (a pure sociopath, say) is likely to reduce your rate of success, rather than enhance it.

Quote:

These concepts of "good" and "evil" are religious by nature. What's in it for the Darwinian mindset to be "good"?

Again, Darwin doesn't apply to human society, really. We live in a society where there are rules that are derived from popular consent. While many of these rules were religious in origin, most of them are based on common sense, and are aimed at creating and maintaining a stable society, which is pretty much in your best interests whether you believe in god or not. Not all atheists are anarchists.

Quote:

What happened to survival of the fittest? How is helping the old and infirm add to our society?

You have to drop this simplistic "survival of the fittest" stuff to understand. And I don't know how you got the idea that all atheists are darwinists as well. Helping the old and infirm adds to our society by 1. reinforcing bonds of affection; 2. preserving a knowledge, memory, and experience base; 3. in some cultures, keeping someone to watch the little kids while the work-age folk go off to work; etc. Just because you can't necessarily contribute to the genetic pool any more doesn't mean you can't contribute to the social pool.

Quote:

What is the void that love fills?

I'm not quite sure what this question means...if you want to look at it in purely psychological terms, each human being has an experience of oneness with the mother until they're born. Even after they're born, for some time they have no concept of self/other. When the concept of self emerges, there's a powerful realization of aloneness that is partially ameliorated by physical contact, bonds of affection, chemical processes that reassure and teach us to reassure ourselves. I think that's the seed of love, and pretty much all love afterward is some kind of bond with someone who helps fill that void left by the realization of aloneness and dissociation from the Whole that happens when we learn that there is a Self and a Not-Self.

Quote:

Why monogamy?

Because it's stable. I don't think the Bible has much to say about monogamy (correct me please if I'm wrong), which was a cultural practice long before it was reified by religion. Monogamy creates stability, which is better for the whole society.

I think wherever you look at religiously-proscribed beliefs, you'll find at the heart of it a common-sense practice that makes a society more stable. And that stability necessarily comes at the cost of individual freedom. Some people choose to take the individual freedom and risk the displeasure of the rest of the society anyhow.

Quote:

It seems to me that those who expouse an atheistic belief structure are limiting the growth of their personal individualism by playing by the rules of the religious.

Not necessarily. A lot of people, religious or atheists, obey those rules and mores that are ultimately to their benefit (going to school, holding a job, not popping stupid people on the nose), and break the ones that they don't think should apply (having polyamorous relationships, not having children, cheating on income taxes, etc.)

Quote:

In other words...if no God, then no final judgement. Who are you trying to please by living a moral life?

Myself, really. Granted, a lot of my moral tenets have been formed by the society I live in, and may have religions bases. But I've considered and discarded a lot of them, too, and kept the ones that I think are most likely to enhance my own life. I am kind to other people because I like it when people are kind to me, and if everyone were kind the world would be a good place. I am charitable in part because it's ultimately in my best interest if a lot of the people who are worse off than I am have a way out, a way to prosperity, rather than seeing themselves as hopeless and possibly committing crimes. I have a monogamous relationship because I love my husband and we make each other feel good in a lot of ways. If we ever decided to have an open relationship, I would accept that because it enriched our lives in some way that was worth the possible risk to the stability of our relationship. Etc. I don't need much more than the wisdom of the golden rule (which is not religiously based) to guide me.

I think the key difference between religious people's morality and atheist's morality is that religious people tend to follow beliefs blindly, because they were "given by god," while atheists are free to examine their beliefs, and the religiously-derived beliefs of their society, and discard the morals that seem unfounded or nonsensical.

Dang lurkette!! you said a moufull.

I don't think religion is a nescessity for morals. I think the golden rule applies to most of my morally hued actions. As much as religion can claim itself to be the source of the golden rule, it is really just the way one has to see the world if one has any compassion and/or sympathy.
Religion can atttempt to teach people morals, but it can't force them to be moral. It often tries to coerce using the threat of eternal damnation-a fairly immoral and therefore ironic- to instill morals.
Religion can also be the justification for really disgusting and bigoted antimorals.

The concept of good and evil is a manufactured one. Things just are.
We may think of infanticide as an evil act, but it is one thing that every species has in common and is generally justifiable by the logic of the more natural world. In the world of natural selection it is actually good policy under certain circumstances.

Ditto lurkette. She be smart.

Altruism can be an evolved behavior. Altruism that saves offspring is genetically rewarded...saving near blood relatives is too, to a lesser extent. Check out prarie dogs for a good example of how this works out. One guy gets to scream out loud when a hawk comes by, and may well bite it, but his/her family dives for cover. Survivial of the fittest does not immediatly mean "kill the weak." The elederly contribute the stability of society, and provide backup childcare for families in distress. The infirm...that's less of a evolution question. During the period in which our species evolved, most injuries that would potentially end life did so quickly. If a person was hurt at all, a lack of medical care meant fairly quick fatalities. They didn't burden society for very long, and so there was no strong impetetus towards euthansia.

impressed by lurkette . . . . . . .
If I give up my seat to an old person or a young pregnant mother then I feel 'good'. Perhaps because I feel that one day i might be in need myself and would expect that in return . . . . . .so its not as selfless as you might think . . . . . I see no conflict between that and choosing not to beleive in god.

Lurkette, that was an amazing response! Bravo!

*takes a bow*

Thanks!

I think the Philosophies of Confucius sum it all up. Humans are social beings and have an instinctual drive to associate. Morality comes out of our social nature we want to be in groups therefore what is good for the group is moral, what is bad for the group is immoral

Good posts! I love this arena where people actually read and think rather than just pontificate where you leave off.

Add double kudos to Lurkette, for very well thought out ideas and a banger job of communicating them.

Its like the picture of dorian gray... this idea commonly recurs: the only you forbid yourself from pleasure is the fear of society.

but thats how it should be... we are social animals, so the society dictates the way we act... if we ignored society it would be chaos. Same thing with dogs, if they ignore the social structure and respect, they will go hungry.

Morality is not something that has to have the basis of religion. Morality is a set of guidelines by which you live that indicate the basis for what is right, and what is wrong. Religion can guide people in a direction, yes, but it is not a governing body of morality. While the two can have links, one CAN exist without the other.

I myself am agnostic. As such, I can still follow certain guidelines set down by myself and society which I dub as morals.

THe question itself is frightening, since it implies that the people who ARE religious would be murdering bastards if they weren't afraid of going to hell.

For me, it's important to be nice to people and cause as little pain as possible, since there is no great equalizer after death.

I don't believe for a second that religion is the basis of morals.
Tribalism brought us empathy, since it was necessary for survival. It still is, the tribes have just grown bigger.

A prime example is Sweden. Scandinavia is probably the most atheist region on the planet; there are no major differences between morals there and any religious country.

Suppose religion is the cause of morality, and god is the one that punishes amoral people... how moral are the "good" people if they're only good because they'll be punished if they're not?

And how is that different from an atheist being good because he'll be punished by society if he's not? And that's supposing atheists cannot be good because they *want* to be good...

Re: Re: Morality without religion
 

You took the words right out of my mouth, Lurkette! Thanks for posting; your posts in Philosophy are always well thought out, and I enjoy reading them.
However, one of my Christian friends made the counterpoint the other day: if he violates his morals, he is going to spend the rest of eternity in the fiery pits of hell (well, not that drastic, but you get the idea). If I violate my morals, I'm going to feel bad about it for a while. My morals are made by my own thought, and I understand them...but which of us has more incentive not to deviate?

I will make this known; I do not believe there to be any such things as absolute right, good, wrong, or bad. However, I am happy enough to identify relative ideas, and use the words in context. So if I say 'right,' I simply use the term because it is easier to say than "the socio-behavioral construct which suggests acceptable courses of action, most commonly known as 'right.'"

As for my morals: I believe that I have a responsibility to my fellow man, because he is a part of the society in which I thrive, and without him my life may sooner or later commence to suck. This responsibility is not a cosmic expectation; it is simply my acknowledgement that it is unreasonable for me to expect someone to act kindly towards me, unless I am prepared to act kindly towards him.
I also believe that I have 80 years (give or take) on this planet, after which I am dead. Kaput. There is nothing else at all; this 80 years is all I have, and all I ever will have. Likewise, you also have your 80 years, and nothing else (to the best of my knowledge). So it follows that the only true sin I can commit is to take even one second of that 80 years from you. So I will never commit murder. To take everything, quite literally everything that someone has, away from them, is such a shocking crime that I would not give it a second's consideration, not if it were my worst enemy.
But I am further obliged: I must also strive to make your 80 years comfortable and enjoyable, or at the very least, refrain from making any part of them worse. So I will not rape, I will not steal the products of your labour, and I shall try to refrain from calling you nasty things and making you miserable. In return, I feel that I am not being unreasonable to expect the same from you.
So that's where my morals come from: my desire for you to help me enjoy my 80 years, and my realisation that it is only reasonable, then, for you to expect the same from me.

As for your specific questions:
I don't care how old and infirm you are, you still have some of your 80 years left, so I will not take that from you. But while you're around, there's a lot I can probably learn from you that will improve the quality of my life.
I have no moral problem with polygamy. If you want an open relationship, go for your life. I, however, am wired with a desire for companionship, and I have found that my companionship with a girl is most effective and most secure when we are in an exclusive relationship, so I prefer monogamy and expect it in my partner. And please, don't call me amoral for supporting open relationships. My morals may not agree with yours at every point, but they do exist and I do take offense at the suggestion that they are any less real or legitimate than yours.

So my morals are free of the need for religion, but I propose that governmental structures are, as well. You seem to have a tacit assumption that atheists are anarchists, but I am quite happy in the capitalist democracy in which I live. Allow me to demonstrate:
We start with an anarchy of nonreligious persons. None of them are associated with each other. Sooner or later, though, they realise that if a few of them get together and pool their resources and talents, they will do better. Wham, you've got tribes.
Now those tribes are competing for resources, and fairly quickly discover that unless they band together, they will soon be taken out by other tribes. So groups of tribes band together under the most powerful warlords, and you soon have feudalism.
From there, the groups will all sooner or later fall to, or surrender to, the strongest warlord. There's your monarchy.
Now that most of the fighting is done with, people have some time to sit down and do some serious advancing, and with the technology comes communication and spare time, and big ideas start getting thought and passed around. Pretty soon, they start to demand a voice in how things are done (having forgotten that their ancestors surrendered to the ancestors of the king), and you have either a democracy or a constitutional monarchy.
Either way, now that some of the commoners are in power, all of the commoners want power, and it's pretty hard to stop people becoming equal before the law. But now that you are your own man, and you own your own stuff, and nobody is forcing you to work, you want rewards for your efforts, and when money is invented as a measure of the worth of a task, people start wanting more money to get more stuff, and you get capitalism.
There's one more step from there: people will then realise that Bill Gates has all the money, and wonder why he deserves it and they don't. It's possible that they will revolt and you'll end up with socialism or communism, but this will typically only happen if the vast majority of the population is composed of either the very poor, or idiots.

Anyway, I got a bit sidetracked, but I think I've said just about all I want to say now.

Lurkette, will you marry me?

Just kidding! Moving right along. For me, altruism has always been a primitive extension of group survival. It may not make much sense to a person on an intellectual level to pull a stranger out of harm's way, but it stems from our ancient tribal instincts. We help the old because they are wise and always have something to give back. Helping the infirm is also an instinctive tribal holdover. A man with a broken leg can still sharpen a spearhead.

In my experience, I haven't needed much religious guidance in order to understand or appreciate the right thing to do. Some people want that and need that, and more power to them. Whatever blows your hair back. Some people need the fear of hellfire and brimstone in order to do good. If that's what it takes, then bring it on.

This would seem to imply that religious people, in being religious, are not "free" to examine their own beliefs, and wander through life blindly, oblivious to their surroundings, which I disagree with. All humans have the power of introspection, and it is up to the individual if they use it or not. My being religious does not take this ability away from me or make me blind in any way.

But as you are led, you will follow. Water in the river as carved in a book.

Lurkette said it all best, you all would probably enjoy reading Ayn Rand...you (lurkette)almost gave a synopsis of her Virtue of Selfishness essay. Her fiction works should be standard reading too. As MR sticky well knows...the only reason I don't go around "bonking stupid people on the nose" is because I don't like Jail (don't think I would anyway) and besides Somebody's ogt to cook my fries at McD's ;)

ACK!!!

Did I accidentally channel Ayn Rand? Poop!

I've always hated her philosophy, but perhaps I should take another look.

Any religious person must examine their own religion to discover if indeed they believe it. After this examination they are not blindly adopting morals because they are told to, but rather that they believe in the structure that encompasses those morals. Atheists are just the same they must take a deep look inside to decide that they believe in no religion...then they ascribe to the morals that they see fit their belief structure.

In both groups of people ignorance abounds...there are thos that do not take pause for introspection...and be they aethist or religious they blindly go about their lives being ignorant of what they really believe...

Lurkette, I'm curious as to what you hated about Ayn Rand's philosophy...My only reservation was that she claimed to be content, but seemed like quite the bitter bitch(pardon my french) to me.

How can people expect for you to beleive in there way's if they can't beleive in yours. It's simple do the right thing, like everybody and enjoy life because it is very short. Then it's over?

I don't need a God to see cause and effect in action. As a counterpoint, our warmongering, religious zealot of a president is an example of letting one's interpretation of religion get in the way of the truth. I would argue that in many cases belief in God either results from or leads to a dualistic mindset, which leads to conflict and the us vs. them construct. If I believe in God and I am weak-minded, I can twist his image in my favor. As in"God bless America, and you're either with us or against us." Or take Israel as an example. I didn't mean to get political, but I was fishing for examples familiar to us all.
And Ayn Rand's philosophy is incomplete in its implicit denial of interdependence, which is why her applicatioin was missing vitality. IMHO.

Great thread! I love all the thought involved.

As a moral agnostic my answer (which happens to not be nearly as thorough as lurkette's) is that basically I still follow the "golden rule". I'll care for those in need, because I'd very much like it if someone did it to me. I'm sure everyone's had things stolen or their property damaged at least once. It sucks, to put it bluntly and don't wish it upon anyone, such that it doesn't happen to me. That's kinda Darwinian.

To be honest it's been a looooong time since I read any Rand (had to read The Fountainhead in 8th grade or something) and since then my only exposure to her has been other peoples' use of her arguments. So really, I'm objecting more to an interpretation of her philosophy than the philosophy itself.

That said, I usually object to how her philosophy is used by conservatives to justify rampant individualism. As Skinbag said, there's no recognition of interdpendence, and "what's good for me" usually stops, rather short-sightedly, with immediate cause-and-effect. There's no recognition, usually, in the application of Rand, of the systemic nature of our society and of the long-term consequences of aggregated individual actions. More money for me = good. Immediate, visible consequence. That completely neglects any sort of larger picture. Social programs, for example, might take some money out of my pocket now but a GOOD social program (e.g., a well-run and accountable Head Start program) would use that money to further a social good (literacy for poor children) that in the end would result in less money out of my pocket (e.g., higher cost of jailing criminals who turned to crime because of lack of education and therefore lack of job opportunities).

Anyhow, that's my poor understanding of Rand and how she's applied.

Lurkette- you really should read some of her essays- she is a very strong advocate of individualism, But- her thought was that this would lead to greater harmony. If you look at the long run it works great - you gave a perfect example w/the head start program..she breaks it down to the point that it could be argued that it was selfish of you to contibrute to that program, but that it was good to be selfish...anyway, kinda like communism- worked good on paper, maybe not so good in real life...and maybe it only works for smart people :)
At any rate...do not discount her because of third party interpretation....reread fountainhead...read Atlas Shrugged and at the same time plow through her essays- they're short and enjoy!

I totally wrote a research paper about this once. This thread makes me wonder why, though, since I didn't really talk about any of this stuff.

I see a lot in here about the Golden Rule, and the consensus seems to be that it is something we should all do. Now, if it is in fact a common sense principle that we should all follow, why? If the answer is because 'it is good for the group', does that mean that the only 'immoral' actions are those that are bad for the group? If you're eating an ice cream cone, and I knock it out of your hand and onto the ground, that would be considered an immoral action, but at the same time it isn't bad for the group. It's bad for YOU, but the group doesn't feel the consequences of that. So, if the Golden Rule tells us what we should and shouldn't do to each other, what defines the sense of good actions and bad actions? It has to be something, some being that has the authority to do so. And that being is God.

1. wasted resources = bad for group
2. conflict (if the other person reacts and fights with you) = instability = bad for the group

Quote:

So, if the Golden Rule tells us what we should and shouldn't do to each other, what defines the sense of good actions and bad actions? It has to be something, some being that has the authority to do so. And that being is God.

Whoa whoa whoa. That's a bit of a logical leap.

What defines the sense of good and bad actions - even in a theocracy - is always some kind of social agreement on good and bad. That social agreement might take the form of authority given to a group of mullahs or it might be interpretation of religious texts as in the case of sharia (look at Egypt vs. Saudi Arabia vs. Iran), or it might be a gradual evolution of mores in a secular society. Look at miscegenation. Interracial marriage used to be against the law in the U.S. As our society's ideas about race have evolved, so have the mores and laws about interracial marriage. It didn't take an appeal to religion to reverse those laws (which were themselves based in religion or at least backed up by selective appeal to scripture), all it took was some science, a lot of protesting, and a basic appeal to peoples' common sense and common decency. Eventually it has become more and more accepted.

The "being" that has the authority to define good vs. bad actions doesn't have to be god. It can just as easily be The People, and in fact usually IS the people. Sometimes they may make an appeal to religion to back up their ideas, but it's always the people defining things.

Omg that made my laugh. On another note, here's a state of mind that might answer your question:

How about the furthering of human knowledge of everything??? If something is immoral and someone who has no religious belief commits the immoral action, one might say that this is because they have no care of what might happen to them in the afterlife, rebirth... yadda yadda....

Anyway i would say someone who has no religious belief is able to comprehend that they do not need a religious belief to do what is expected of them. We humans live by some unspoken code... not laws... something else, possible instinct...

As you might be able to tell, i do NOT believe in god. Do i run around burning and killing? No. Why, you might ask. Because i understand what is expected of me, and i would like to live life to the fullest. For someone who enjoys causing pain and suffering it might be a different story.

God doesn't exist.

Lurkette,

First of all, Happy Birthday!

Sorry for the leap there - let me try to fill in the gap a little better.

The sense of good and bad actions must be defined somewhere. If a social agreement or religious texts or common sense/decency, something has instilled within us a sense of good and bad, right and wrong. You feel it when you help an old lady carry her groceries and you feel it when you lie to your boss. I will grant that people define a lot of the good and bad things (our laws for instance), but where then does this ability to define good and bad come from? Wouldn't you agree that it's just not a great coincidence that we all share a lot of the same views as to what is good and bad? We all feel something compelling us to do the things we OUGHT to do, and not do the things we OUGHT NOT to do. Even cultures completely foreign to us have the same feeling without the same American laws or customs. So then, if we all feel that, we didn't make it up and we didn't all get it from the same social agreement, where did it come from? It must come from a higher source than people. The higher source is God.

Now that may seem like a big leap there at the end, but since this thread is about morality without religion, I'm stating that you cannot have morality without religion. It must come with religion, and God is the basis of that religion that I espouse.

bennyb, stick around and you might learn how things usually get presented here.

"God is for the weak" won't make you a lot of friends in this forum.

Im not trying to make any friends... this is my 100% whole hearted belief... But i will edit... ill get around to talking about that in a bit :D

Thanks!

Quote:

Even cultures completely foreign to us have the same feeling without the same American laws or customs. So then, if we all feel that, we didn't make it up and we didn't all get it from the same social agreement, where did it come from? It must come from a higher source than people. The higher source is God. Now that may seem like a big leap there at the end, but since this thread is about morality without religion, I'm stating that you cannot have morality without religion. It must come with religion, and God is the basis of that religion that I espouse.

I disagree that it HAS to come from religion. What about pre-religious societies, or animistic ones? They still have taboos, guidelines for behaviors, etc, without a concept of god. I think it's just as reasonable to assume that things that are beneficial/harmful for a society are codified into a series of beliefs that are then reinforced by the man-made institution of religion. The argument that cultures foreign to us have the same "feeling" of right and wrong speaks more for something inherent to humans, or more specifically human social structure, than given by god, given the radical differences in the conceptions of god between, say, Shinto Japan or Daoist China and Puritan England.

I don't believe in the whole heaven and hell deal, so I think I'm valid for answering this question.

Really, the only person I live for in the end is myself. Does that mean that I'm selfish? Of course not. I do kind things for others because I want to, because I like helping other people out. I'll gladly donate my money to charity (I've given beggars money too, on occasion, even though I often don't have enough for myself), and I'll lend my time and knowledge to anyone who asks. I don't do it because I'll feel a reward in the end, I just do it because it's the right thing to do. I personally don't believe in good and evil definining each other, either. I just can't imagine evil existing, becasue it's a concept completely foreign to me. For me, the question isn't why I should do the right thing, but why should I do the wrong thing? What motivation do I have to hurt others, to make them feel pain and suffering? I hate to see other people hurt, because I personally know how that feels. In my opinion, and in my philosophy, if you do good things for the sake of good, you make the world a little better. Call it karma, call it what you wish, but I try to be a good person, because I just like being a good guy.

Just out of curiosity i would like to know if you personally believe in god. If you dont want to answer, so be it, but you make an excellent argument. He he, its so good, yet so simple. Exactly the point i was trying to make.

Doing everything to further along your life in the afterlife is waisting your precious time on this planet.

The answer to that one is on another thread, but I'll explain my view of it with the least words possible. I don't believe in a singular being (big guy with a beard) that is the god. I follow more of a buddhist belief (changed a bit, of course), in that I believe that the collective will of all beings (you, me, that tree in my yard) is the force that would be the ultimate god. Below that, I believe there are smaller divisions of god-beings who have achieved enlightenment. In the end, it's my belief that all enlightened beings become gods, and make their own creations (different universes). This being the case, I also believe in reincarnation, since I don't think life can be lived fairly only once. I have no evidence of this, nor does it really matter to me if I'm correct or not. It's like I said before, I live for me, and do good because I want to. Not because I have to.

This argument is interesting in an intellectual way, but very one sided. I'm trying to phrase this without being offensive, but it's difficult. It seems that what the question really boils down to is "Why would you treat others well if you're not going to be punished by god?" Completely aside from acts like murder and theft, which society will punish you for, actions like knocking an ice cream cone out of someone's hand, to borrow an earlier example, are pretty much universally accepted as wrong. So why wouldn't I do that? Well, physically, I run the risk of a beating. Good reason not to do it. There's more to it, though, because there are plenty of people that aren't phsyically intimidating to me, so I can treat them any way I want with little fear of physical retribution. However, I treat everyone well (mostly. I'm no saint) because A)I want to be treated the same way. B)My parents and family have always treated me well, and treated other people well, and I've learned from their example. Other factors may come into play as well, but these are the main reasons that drive me in my day to day life. God isn't even a consideration.

My question to the religous people is this - Is fear of god the only reason you behave morally? And if you believe that god has instilled us all with instinctive morality, how do you explain human propensity for cruelty? What about the differences in morality from culture to culture? Many core morals stay the same - don't kill, don't steal, treat each other well, etc, but things such as polygamy, sexual practices and numerous others vary widely.

Here it goes...

The reason that i act in a fashion which I believe would not be punished by god, although I do not believe in god is because I feel the need to be accepted in society. If i kill, steal... etc, i know that I will be an outcast.

Also, I believe I live a good life, which allows me to not believe in god. I have never suffered a hardship which would force me to turn to someone high up in the clouds and ask for advice. My brain has served me well for the past few years, how can i believe that something exists if there is no proof? Bible shmible, that is not proof that some greater being exists. I do believe in supernatural powers, but they are all probably things that the human brain cannot comprehend at the moment.

So you ask, why I act in a civil matter? Because I have no reason to.

I think it deals more with psychology, sociology, and more specifically, social norms and expectations.

But if you believe you lead a good life, where does your sense of good come from? Something you came up with on your own?

What proof do you have that God does not exist? Can you really prove that there is no God? Even if you subscribe to the Big Bang theory of creation, where did the infinitely dense mass come from? There must be some point of origin. I believe God is that point of origin.

You mean because you have not reason NOT to?

So...you believe that the universe must have a point of origin, but not God?

x

I believe organized religion should be banned. Had this been done a few thousand years ago, countless millions would not have died horrible deaths, and the majority of today's problems would no exist.
To base morality on religion is also difficult to believe. Christianity bases it's rules of behavior on the fairy tale of Moses coming from the mountain with the Ten Commandments written in stone.
I am convinced these same ten rules have existed long before Moses made his entry. Tribes discovered during the last century, all behave as if Moses had personally talked to them.

I do believe in a higher intelligence. To look up at night at a non light poluted sky, to read up on details of the workings of any part of a living body, and the methods of propagation of some basic lifeforms are enough reason for me to believe in a creator, or, if evolution is real, to believe in the force behind evolution. It just seems a lot easier to give credit to a creator for it all then to credit accidental meetings of molecules and come up with all these fantastic results, even if there were a few billion years to do it in.

But when I look at all the man made forms of religion, I again think they should be done away with. Live your spiritual life within yourself, that is where the action is. Not on the front row benches of our places of organized worship. After all, look what we ended up with............BUSH

My sense of good came from society. By what i said, i ment that there are no hardships in my life, that would posess me to turn to an "All powerful" force.


Of course i cannot. If i could i would be a very wealthy man, with a price on my head for millions of dollars by your corrupt church. But I would rather believe in not believing, than stupidly give up and say god. god Is just a word used in referral to something that was confusing to someone, and one point in time.


Ahhhh the age old debate.... Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Am i correct? How can i believe something exists because there is no proof against it?


It is nice to believe that there is something "higher" out there right? A certian comfort? I feel none of that.

Profound...

That's a big call, and can only be made on the assumption that all organised religion is wrong. I don't believe in God, but I think people have a right to do so if I want. There are plenty of people out there who believe that the majority of today's problems would be solved if all us filthy atheists weren't running around making havoc, and that religion were enforced by the government. They are probably right.
Besides, if I were convinced that paradise was waiting, and that all I had to do for a ticket was ask Jesus for one, what kind of a prick would I be not to organise a few mates to tell as many people about it as possible?

[QUOTE]To base morality on religion is also difficult to believe. Christianity bases it's rules of behavior on the fairy tale of Moses coming from the mountain with the Ten Commandments written in stone.
I am convinced these same ten rules have existed long before Moses made his entry. Tribes discovered during the last century, all behave as if Moses had personally talked to them.[quote]

Your calling the story of Moses a fairy tale could be deemed quite offensive to some. Please try to select your words more tactfully in future.

Evolution is real. It happens, and we've observed it. The question you're after is "Is the sole force behind the development of our species, and all the others, natural selection?"

And George Washington. And St Francis of Assisi. And gospel music. And Mother Theresa. And Princess Diana. And Martin Luther King, Jr. And St John's ambulances. And the Salvation Army.

I'm not defending the atrocities committed in the name of religion. Just saying that it's unfair to ban organised religion in its entirety because of the actions of a misguided few.

That's a big call, and can only be made on the assumption that all organised religion is wrong. I don't believe in God, but I think people have a right to do so if I want. There are plenty of people out there who believe that the majority of today's problems would be solved if all us filthy atheists weren't running around making havoc, and that religion were enforced by the government. They are probably right.
Besides, if I were convinced that paradise was waiting, and that all I had to do for a ticket was ask Jesus for one, what kind of a prick would I be not to organise a few mates to tell as many people about it as possible?

Your calling the story of Moses a fairy tale could be deemed quite offensive to some. Please try to select your words more tactfully in future.

Evolution is real. It happens, and we've observed it. The question you're after is "Is the sole force behind the development of our species, and all the others, natural selection?"

And George Washington. And St Francis of Assisi. And gospel music. And Mother Theresa. And Princess Diana. And Martin Luther King, Jr. And St John's ambulances. And the Salvation Army.

I'm not defending the atrocities committed in the name of religion. Just saying that it's unfair to ban organised religion in its entirety because of the actions of a misguided few.

mr. sticky; I must say that I'm afraid that you're making a horrible mistake in assuming that "good" is a religious term. "Good" was originally a Platonic concept. So, you could just assume that "good" is a form-- an independent idea that commands conformity through reason, or something of that nature.
Further, it seems like you have a real problem distinguishing between the percieved and the in-its-self (the noumenal). This world-as-it-is cannot be the same as the world of experience (because we percieve things that are not primary qualities-- that is to say qualities that only exist in our head-- like color (in the real world there is only wavelength-- which is different than color)). So, it is at least possible to assume that there is a natural order to the noumenal world-- thus doing anything against this nature might be the absolute measure of "wrong"-- which is noticiably different from Christian moral theory.
It is important to remember that the method and motivation behind a moral system does not have to look anything like contemporary Christian moral theory. In fact, most people don't follow a Christian conception of morality in the US. Things are much more along the lines of emotive-morality (ethical non-cognitivism), whereby peole don't have a system, but our emotions serve as a day-by-day guide to the moral weight of a given situation.
One last point: if there were no such thing as morality in darwinism-- or to say that morality is not needed in Darwinism, then you could argue that the fittest being could do whatever they want. If, for example, I was the fittest being on earth, and my only goal or satisfaction was in destroying other creatures-- eventually I would be the only creature left. No more world. I think this actually belies a misunderstanding of Darwin's theory on your part-- Darwin's theory was also about systems. Creatures who are effiecent are the ones who survive. Part of that efficientcy might just be love, and caring for others in our society-- as a method of perpetuating ourselves; the selfish gene, if you will.

Signed,

Your freindly neighborhood philosophy major.

a second hateful reply to all the other posters on this board:

Sweet Jesus people! 1) If there had been no Catholic church, then the idea of inteligent design would not have been prominent in the west. This means there would have been no majestical God-given system to understand (at least in people's heads at the time), so therefore-- no science. The Catholic church was the biggest supporter of modern, western science since it's inception. So please try to realize that even though we might have problems with the institution-- it has given us the benifits that you now so richly enjoy.
2)If you want to propose to do away with all forms of doctrination ask yourself this: is hard science completely objective? If you honestly think that "hard science" can completely answer all the probelms of the world then there are a few things that you haven't considered-- science is empirical, and humans are fallable-- further, empirical observations are always contingent on who observed them and when and where. What you're left with is faith in science. And this is no different than religious faith.
3)Whereas it may have become socially acceptable to make an argument with no propositions, and a rebuttle can be constituted by merely saying 'X is evil/ wrong/ responible for republicans', this is actually not worth anything as a claim. For the love of the ever-living Christ-child, give us reasons for what you're saying.

My theory is that morality would resemble "your rights end where mine begin".

possible yes, difficult yes, worth it no

religion++

this is comming from a non relgious person.

"evolution doesn't explain creation"

Kneejerk reaction to a quick glance through this post.

I would also give ascribe more value to the purpose of religion than many have suggested. I don't think most adults use religion as a "moral" guide - I think it is frequently used to put into perspective ones fear of death. Children on the other hand are a different story - I think religion is very effective to instilling a sense of morality in a child. I also think you can trust that these children, as most do - will question everything they've been taught as they go through adolescence and early adulthood, and come to some spiritual ground through contemplation. The morals and values instilled in these children through religion; however, are generally not lost through this rebellion and self-determination.

I am atheist and I have very high moral standards I think. To me morals are rules I feel are right and I set them for myself believing it will make me a better person.

I'm an atheist. That didn't come with a free Darwin membership card either. I'm a free thinker and a dreamer and a lover of the chaotic moment. I've always lived in the right now, after all, at what point in your life has it ever not been right now? You were born in a right now and you live in a right now and you'll die in a right now. Without God, there is no longer any objective standard by which to judge good and evil. This realization was very troubling to philosophers a few decades ago, but it hasn't really had much of an effect in other circles. Most people still seem to think that a universal morality can be grounded in something other than God' laws: in what is good for people, in what is good for society, in what we feel called upon to do. But explanations of why these standards necessarily constitute "universal moral law" are hard to come by. Usually, the arguments for the existence of moral law are emotional rather than rational: "But don't you think RAPE is wrong?" moralists ask, as if a shared opinion were a proof of universal truth. "But don't you think people need to believe in something greater than themselves?" they appeal, as if needing to believe in something can make it true. Occasionally, they even resort to threats: "but what would happen if everyone decided that there is no good or evil? Wouldn't we all kill each other?"
The real problem with the idea of universal moral law is that it asserts the existence of something that we have no way to know anything about. Believers in good and evil would have us believe that there are "moral truths" -that is, there are things that are morally true of this word, in the same why that it is true that the sky is blue. They claim that it is true of this world that murder is morally wrong just as it is true that water freezes at thirty-two degrees. But we can investigate the freezing temperature of water: we can measure it and agree together that we have arrived at some kind of "objective" truth, insofar as such a thing is possible. On the other hand, what do we observe if we want to investigate whether it is true that murder is evil? There is no tablet of moral law on a mountaintop for us to consult, there are no commandments carved into the sky above us; all we have to go on are our own instincts and the words of a bunch of priests and other self-appointed moral experts, many of whom can't even agree amongst themselves. As for the words of the religious and the moralists, if they can't offer any hard evidence from this world, why should we believe their claims? And regarding our instincts-if we feel that something is right or wrong, that may make it right or wrong for us, but that's not proof that it is UNIVERSALLY good or evil. Thus, the idea that there are universal moral laws is mere supersstition: it is a claim that things exist in this world which we can never actually experience or learn anything about. And we would do well not to waste our time wondering about things we can never know anything about.
When two people disagree over right and wrong, there is no way to resolve the debate. There is nothing in this world to which they can refer to see which one is correct-because there really are no moral laws, just personal evaluations. So the only important question is where your values come from: do you create them yourself, according to your own desired, or do you accept them from someone else... someone else who has disguised their opinions as "morality?"

I believe that there is no universal moral code that should dictate human behavior. There is no such thing as good or evil, there is no universal standard of right and wrong. Our values and morals come from us and belong to us, whether we like it or not, so we should claim them proudly for ourselves, as our own creations, rather than seeking some external justification for them.

Climbing off the soapbox...backing away...

The thing is, most people don't want to have to take that leap and would much rather just have an arbitrary leader decide what is arbitrarily best for them. When you've got a wife, kids, bills, mortgage, investments, office politics, etc., the last thing you want to have to do at the end of the day is be an arbitrator of your own. For most people, it's just not practical, however beneficial it may be in the long run.

The cruel, absurd abuses of power, the self-satisfied authority that the teachers and principals lorded over you, the intimidation and ridicule of your classmates don't end at graduation. Those things are all present in the adult world, only more so. If you thought you lacked freedom before, wait until you have to answer to shift leaders, managers, owners, landlords, creditors, tax collectors, city councils, draft boards, law courts and police. When you get out of school you may escape the jurisdiction of some authorities, but you enter the control of even more domineering ones. Do you enjoy being controlled by others who don't understand or care about your wants and needs? Do you get anything out of obeying the instructions of employers, the restrictions of landlords, the laws of magistrates, people who have powers over you that you would never have given them willingly?
How is it that these "abitrary leaders" get all this power anyway? The answer is HIERARCHY.
Hierarchy is a value system in which your worth is measured by the number of people and things you control, and how dutifully you obey those above you. Weight is exerted downward throught the power structure: everyone is forced to accept and conform to this system by everone else. You're afraid to disobey those above you because they can bring to bear against you the power of everyone and everything under them. You're afraid to abdicate your power over those below you because they might end up above you. In our hierarchical system, we're all so busy trying to protect ourselves from each other that we never have a chance to stop and ask if this is really the best way our society could be organized. If we could think about it, we'd probably agree that it isn't; for we all know happiness comes from control over our own lives, not other people's lives. And as long as we're busy accepting what "arbitrary leaders decide what is arbitrarily best" for us, we're bound to be victims of control.
Morality has been justified externally for so long that today we hardly know how to conceive of it in any other way. We have always had to claim that our values proceeded from something external to us, because basing values on our own desires was (not surprisingly) branded evil by the preachers of so-called moral law. Today we still fill instinctively that our actions must be justified by something outside of ourselves, something "greater" than ourselves-if not by God, then by moral law, state law, public opinion, justice, "love of man," etc. We have been so conditioned by centuries of asking permission to feel things and do things, of being forbidden to base any decisions on our own needs, that we still want to think we are obeying a higher power even when we act on our own desires and beliefs; smoehow, it seems more defensible to act out of submission to some kind of authority than in the service of our own inclinations. We feel so ashamed of our aspirations and desires that we would rather attribute our actions to something "higher." But what could be greater than our own desires, what could possibly provide better justification for our actions? Should we be serving something external without consulting our desires, perhaps serving against our desires?
This question of justification is where so many otherwise radical individuals and groups have gone wrong. They attack what they see as injustice not on the grounds that they don't want to see such things happen, but on the grounds that it is "morally wrong." By doing so, they seek the support of everyone who still believes in the fable of moral law, and they get to see themselves as the servants of TRUTH. These people should not be taking advantage of popular delusions to make their points, but should be challenging assumptions and questioning traditions in everything they do. An improvement in, for example, animal rights, which is achieved in the name of justice and morality, is a step forward at the cost of two steps back: it solves one problem while reinforcing and perpetuating another. Certainly such improvements could be fought for and attained on the grounds that they are desirable (nobody who truly considered it would really WANT to needlessly slaughter and mistreat animals, would they?), rather than with tactics leftover from Christian superstition. Unfortunately, because of centuries of conditioning imposed by self appointed "moral" leaders, many people are all to willing to accept what is "arbitrarily best" from their "arbitrary leaders."

Of course not, I believe that the fear of God does drive me to behave more morally than most people I know, however it is exactly as it was said in many earlier posts... I believe God instilled in me the propensity for feeling deep down inside below anything else what exactly is right and wrong.

In the Christian system the propensity for cruelty is an act of turning from God.
The differences in morality standards can be accounted for in that those societies believed in different gods.... or... a seperation from the one true God. Religion didn't create morals, God created morals.... and throughout history the societies that have been more in tune with the God of the Christians.... unless blinded by an overzealous time of regression (aka Crusades)... have been the most moral. But at the same time... proving that morals is not an entirely God given trait does not disprove the existence of God.

As I said before, people let others guide them because of the weight of dealing with the world that our parents never told us about. As it stands now, the arbitrary leader is more a solution than he is a problem. You can only expect so much of a regular person.

Hierarchy is also a natural development of dealing with large amounts of people and their corresponding systems of commerce and communication.

As long as there are powerful people who want to do bad things, we will need this hierarchy, even with them as a part of it. Hierarchy is organization, not necessarily an element of an authoritarian regime. And you need to be organized to do battle.

Most importantly, however, an effective personal code of conduct requires a significant amount of experience, education and intelligence. I don't think existentialist anarchy would suffice with our current system of educating the youth (both inside and outside the official curriculum).

Well, I must say I hadn't thought about reading between the lines in your original reply. By the way, happy birthday.

I don't think we disagree... entirely.

You do have me pegged incorrectly as an anarchist though. I stand outside all belief systems as an objective thinker. I'm an atheist that supports the cyclic time theories as proposed throughout many ancient religions and in Frank J. Tipler's book, "The Physics of Immortality." I'm also a big fan of any political literature, but the only true politics in life that I find enjoyable are the politics of the persuit of pleasure. I don't necessarily think that we should drop the system entirely... but I think we can all agree that work needs to be done to put the world back on the right path.

Nothing wrong with a little leadership... but when the leaders forget who put them there, they need to be removed.

Respectfully, that position is a little more difficult to attain than you might think. Thanks for wishing me a happy birthday, though :).

I think what we're dealing with is a kind of large-scale social entropy (although some will argue that entropy actually develops towards order rather than chaos). But as a system becomes large enough to require a bureaucracy, it begins to show symptoms of the very problems it's trying to solve. I think in order for us to manage civilization on our current scale, we will have to accept some technological intrusion, as much as I find that personally abhorrent. Either that, or divide further into manageable groups--at the cost of greatly slowing overall social progress.

I am not a religious person, and I do not believe that I have to answer to a higher being or supernatural power, but I believe that I have high moral standards. I don't uphold them for a god like I said, but rather, I uphold them for myself. If I was not a moral person I don't believe that I would be happy with myself. Being and doing so called "good" things makes me feel good about myself and the those around me. I don't think my life would be complete without my morals.

Nah, you don't need God too justify that. Go read some Aristotle and flourish :)

I think St. Thomas Aquinas would have a good answer for this based on natural law. Natural law is based on do good and avoid evil, and even if you are not a religious it still applies to you. It is a certain set of values that everyone has, or should have. The topic is a lot more complicated than this and a lot of people disagree with Aquinas, but I think he can give a good answer to why there can be morality without religion

The reason our morality isn't derived form a higher being, is that for every moral you think is right there is most likely a society that thinks its right. If morality is inherent in all people than societies in general should have the same morals. The ancient Aztecs probally killed children in a fire evey year. Ancient warrior cultures were know to rape, kill, and eat the surrounding tribes and even the people within their own group. Morality is taught to children at a young age by the culture in which they grow up in. Its an evolutionary process devleoped by a social animal. Ants don't believe in a God, but they help each other at the sake of thier own lives.