How can morality exist without god?

[waitasec]

While falling short of objective proof. There is more than enough evidence to adopt faith in God. Regardless it is not necessary to prove God exists to discuss the implications of his existence. You are right that his reality is the only question. The implications of his existence are unavoidable. The title of this thread does not require anyone to prove God exists. It requires the justification of morality without God. An impossible task.

and what justifies morality with god?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

While falling short of objective proof. There is more than enough evidence to adopt faith in God. Regardless it is not necessary to prove God exists to discuss the implications of his existence. You are right that his reality is the only question. The implications of his existence are unavoidable. The title of this thread does not require anyone to prove God exists. It requires the justification of morality without God. An impossible task.

Hang on one minute:

Do you agree that morality does exist now?

I think you acknowledge here that the existence of God is a matter of debate. Providing you do agree that morality does exist, then if the debate settles out at "God does not exist", then you can't really argue that morality can't exist without God; all you'd be able to argue is that you can't understand how morality does exist without God.

 

[1robin]

An atheist has no need to justify their morality because they're not scared of some invisible boogie man in the sky that decides what's right or wrong. It's called living, and it's actually quite liberating

Lawlessness is quite liberating. It is good you do not feel you must justify your actions since you can't. However a little thinking and you will realize that moral codes at least in a non dictatorial society require justification. That is why Jefferson said God was the only source of our inalienable rights. It is also necessary to justify forcible action against another persons or nations moral actions. You have a simplistic inadequate view of moral development. No insufficiently justified moral code can provide justice. Your purposeful distortion of a Christians motivation for their faith reveals desperation caused by the lack of a dependable position and deserves no response.

 

[waitasec]

An atheist has no need to justify their morality because they're not scared of some invisible boogie man in the sky that decides what's right or wrong. It's called living, and it's actually quite liberating

no actually we are more scared about other things that are more significant.
like loosing ones self respect.

 

[1robin]

But you contend that morals provided by humans are not universal and absolute. What makes God moral instructions universal and absolute?

His absolute sovereignty over everything else. As well as his promise to judge every human being that ever lived and his revealed characteristics that if accurate are sufficient to make this judgement happen exactly as he said.

Do you think that an omnipotent and omniscient God must necessarily be moral? If yes, why?

IMO no. However I do not have sufficient knowledge to meaningfully address this question.

 

[Penumbra]

His absolute sovereignty over everything else. As well as his promise to judge every human being that ever lived and his revealed characteristics that if accurate are sufficient to make this judgement happen exactly as he said.

IMO no. However I do not have sufficient knowledge to meaningfully address this question.

In your worldview, robin, does power equal morality?

 

[1robin]

So basically you are saying that the ONLY method you can imagine of distinguishing a good action from a bad one is claiming your morals are dictated by God, even if that claim is false.

I like my way better.

I said that God or something very much like it is the only possible justification for a moral frame work. Morality without this is arbitrary and capricious. What you like has no bearing on what is true.

 

[1robin]

Boo

It's simply so that we NEED morals or the world would be a complete chaos. People have come to realise this and now we've got this awesome thing called laws.

I've been raised without religion and I don't think I'm a bad person.

So your are satisfied with an arbitrary morality based on nothing more than opinion. You have a lower threshold of intellectual satisfaction than I do. I require my actions to actually be correct not just accepted.

 

[1robin]

what do you mean by this?

What I said. There is no basis in atheism for declaring things are ultimately actually good or bad. The concept has no ultimate meaning. It is left with nothing more substantial than opinion to justify morality.

are you saying theism has a justifiable standard? if so, by what criteria do you determine that it is justifiable?

If the God of the bible exists. He is the ultimate arbiter and judge of our moral actions based on his moral standards. His sovereignty and omniscience render him the greatest possible authority on morality. His revealed nature is sufficient to establish concepts of moral (consistent with his nature and purpose) and immoral (inconsistent with his nature and purpose).

 

[Straw Dog]

It requires the justification of morality without God. An impossible task.

I think I made a decent attempt. At least it seems I can justify my personal morality in light of a desire to be an authentic expression of that which I consider to be the best of human nature. Morality is a means to enforce and enhance intergrity, or internal consistency with external behavior.

I know that I believe in compassion and that I may promote it, but that's all irrelevant unless I actually demonstrate compassionate behavior in my daily life. Moral codes are worthless without a corresponding conduct. I desire to be a genuine person and an internal consistency of actions are the most relevant representation of who I am as a person. My personal morality is meant to facilicate my desire for an authentic expression. Moral codes are secondary or supplemental. Integrity has no need of absolute morality or rules.

I don't know, though. What do people mean when they are asking for 'justification'? You mean justified in your eyes? Justified relative to your faith's ethical code? Or what?

 

[1robin]

I think it's preferable to not include the concepts of "good" and "evil" in a worldview. They're too vague, and inherently include a judgment rather than an observation.

I find them useful only for discussions where they have social meaning.

You are basically saying you prefer that there is no ultimate justification and foundation for morality (quite revealing). Since society requires and assumes an ultimate justification for morality you are in the minority.

 

[waitasec]

What I said. There is no basis in atheism for declaring things are ultimately actually good or bad. The concept has no ultimate meaning. It is left with nothing more substantial than opinion to justify morality.

which is the way it is.

If the God of the bible exists. He is the ultimate arbiter and judge of our moral actions based on his moral standards. His sovereignty and omniscience render him the greatest possible authority on morality. His revealed nature is sufficient to establish concepts of moral (consistent with his nature and purpose) and immoral (inconsistent with his nature and purpose).

the the criteria is based on an "if"?
hmmm.

 

[waitasec]

You are basically saying you prefer that there is no ultimate justification and foundation for morality (quite revealing). Since society requires and assumes an ultimate justification for morality you are in the minority.

but you prefer your justification to be based on an "if"
interesting.

 

[Koldo]

His absolute sovereignty over everything else. As well as his promise to judge every human being that ever lived and his revealed characteristics that if accurate are sufficient to make this judgement happen exactly as he said.

In essence, aren't you saying that 'might makes right'? One thing is moral or immoral because the most powerful being that exists says so. How is this any less arbitrary than any moral code created by humans?

Other than that, how do we determine whether God will keep his word as to the manner he will perform the judgment? What if this god decides to reward the transgressors and punish the ones who acted in accordance to his instructions? What is there to prevent this from happening?

 

[Penumbra]

You are basically saying you prefer that there is no ultimate justification and foundation for morality

You didn't answer my question to you.

I simply find words like good and evil to be drastically unhelpful. That's considerably different from saying there is no justification for morality. Of course I think there is a justification for morality. Nature and logic.

I asked you if you equate morality with power. That the biggest force gets to govern morality, regardless of what that morality is. You didn't answer.

(quite revealing).

I would absolutely love for you to go in detail about what this reveals about me.

Do tell. I quite like hearing about myself.

Since society requires and assumes an ultimate justification for morality you are in the minority.

I'm ok with being in the minority.

 

[waitasec]

His absolute sovereignty over everything else. As well as his promise to judge every human being that ever lived and his revealed characteristics that if accurate are sufficient to make this judgement happen exactly as he said.

if....

in other words you're assuming.

an interesting way of determining absolute morality...

 

[Straw Dog]

I'm ok with being in the minority.

What, why? But all the cool kids believe that might makes right.

 

[Alceste]

I think he's right There IS no value in good or evil.
What people consider to be 'good' is if you do something that help other people. People like that idea because if there are more 'good' people, there's a bigger chance that they might one day help YOU.

But in the end 'good' and 'bad' are just terms invented by humans.

Btw, sorry if my English sucks

Belgians! Writing better English than most of us (and German, and French, and Dutch, and Flemish) and always apologizing for your bad English.

 

[Alceste]

I have answered this question a dozen time in a dozen ways so far. If they were not then they are unjustifiable, have no sufficient foundation, and are arbitrarily chosen.

So if your own religious morals were not created by god, then you are prepared to accept that this means they are unjustifiable, have no sufficient foundation, and are arbitrarily chosen?

Congratulations! Now you understand how we (non-religious people) see your religious morality.

Thankfully, the non-religious process of ethical reasoning is much more complex than just putting all our eggs in one basket and hoping for the best. We are free to build our ethics from the ground up, and we have an opportunity at every stage of the process to assess whether or not our choices are well-reasoned and effective in attaining our objectives.

 

[Alceste]

And if they are from God, then they're also unjustifiable, have no sufficient foundation, and are arbitrarily chosen... unless there exists a standard for morality that's external to God.

Good point. And of course there would need to be a standard of morality external to that one, and so on.