Morality without God?

Re: Morality without God?


Then who/what created morality?

baddog, the short answer is, the same people who created God.

Rosborne may have a different take of course, and I'm not trying to derail your discussion. Just putting in my two cents.

Re: Morality without God?


We did.

Morality is just compassion wrapped in cultural trappings.

Compassion is the outward expression of empathy.

Empathy is a form of emotional communication which is an innate emotional characteristic of most social animals (like humans).

(IMO of course)

Re: Morality without God?


Trying to understand your thoughts Ros:

Empathy is basically one's ability to consider another's emotion(s) - and you're saying that empathy is innate.

I believe that selfishness is innate [from birth] and is also a trait that (if we choose to) should learn to be tempered in order to reasonably coexist.

Therefore, it is my estimation that empathy and selfishness are basically opposites.

Re: Morality without God?


It's more than considering anothers emotions, people actually 'feel' for other people. When we see someone crash on one of those skateboard videos, we wince. We feel other people's sadness and pleasure.

Obviously, each of us makes use of these feelings in different ways, some even take pleasure in others pain. But that's beside the point. The basic ability is there, and I consider it a rudamentary form of communication, possibly the 'first' form of communication.



Possibly. I hadn't thought about it before.



I wouldn't call them opposite. If Empathy is feeling what another feels through an understanding of how we would feel, then I'm not sure it has an opposite.

All interesting thoughts Ros. I guess I've always thought that times were pretty rough in the beginning and communication centered around the needs/desires of self. (Selfishness.)

I'll give that some more thought in general - and also as to how it relates to the original question. Any research areas that you'd recommend in that area?

BD

Re: Morality without God?


Morality is not the opposite of selfishness. As Dorothy Rowe once said, "We would like to believe that we are not in the business of surviving but in being good and we do not like to admit to ourselves that we are good in order to survive." Survival of one's self is an entirely selfish endeavor.

Even if that were true, sometimes the needs of self are best served by helping others. This is especially true for humans who survive much better in groups than alone (even more so, back in the beginning when times were really tough).

Re: Morality without God?


But survival of self is difficult to disentangle from survival of the group which benefits survival of self. If evolution selected for empathy and compaission because those things led to more cohesive groups and better survival, then none of these systems (selfishness, altruism, empathy, compassion) can be considered isolated conditions. It may be, that for some species, at one time, they may have existed in isolation. I'm not sure that's the case any more (at least for us).

Rosborne is no doubt correct to see empathy and compassion as the individual correlates of social cohesion and cooperation. Give me as my neighbor the compassionate individual over the follower of rules any time.
Morality and God are both cultural constructions, morality:the rules we follow and God:the enforcer of obedience. To follow rules tells me only of the tendency toward compliance and fear built into the follower; to behave toward others with compassion tells me of the social maturity built into the individual.

replying


So, who invented humans? where did all did all the matter that has shaped our world today come from? God always WAS . It is just as silly to believe there was a God who always WAS as to believe that everything has come from nothing.

Thinking should serve to solve our problems, not to create them. What a shame.

What about believing that everything always was?

Re: Morality without God?
Rosborne wrote:

I agree with this.


But I don't agree with this. I think that those who believe in a god often define what is moral and immoral differently than those who don't- not necessarily in a way that is any better or worse- but differently- even within a society with common laws of acceptable behavior. So it does change certain views of morality - maybe not as a general concept-but definitely in specific patterns of behavior. Maybe that's what the original poster was referring to.

Even though I believe in the existence of a creator worthy of esteem and worship-call it god if you want- I don't credit that with my sense of morality. I credit my own will with the decisions I make, whether they be moral or immoral. Any religious teaching I had is just a guide-not an absolute or imperative in any way.

But as to the initial question, if morality was dependent on God - whose perceived characteristics and teachings (in whatever form s/he is worshipped) have remained pretty much static for hundreds if not thousands of years, why would morality or the standards of what is moral or immoral be constantly changing? You might say just reinterpretation to accomodate differing times, but I think it's more about accomodating mans' changing needs and desires- and not the will or commandments of any god.

Bad reasons to be good
Sam Harris The Boston Globe

Published: October 30, 2006





America's midterm elections are fast approaching, and their outcome could well be determined by the "moral values" of conservative Christians.

While this possibility is regularly bemoaned by liberals, the link between religion and morality in our public life is almost never questioned.

One of the most common justifications one hears for religious faith, from all points on the political spectrum, is that it provides a necessary framework for moral behavior. Most Americans appear to believe that without faith in God, we would have no durable reasons to treat one another well. The political version of this morality claim is that the country was founded on "Judeo-Christian principles," the implication being that without these principles we would have no way to write just laws.

It is, of course, taboo to criticize a person's religious beliefs. The problem, however, is that much of what people believe in the name of religion is intrinsically divisive, unreasonable, and incompatible with genuine morality.

The truth is that the only rational basis for morality is a concern for the happiness and suffering of other conscious beings.

This emphasis on the happiness and suffering of others explains why we don't have moral obligations toward rocks. It also explains why (generally speaking) people deserve greater moral concern than animals, and why certain animals concern us more than others. If we show more sensitivity to the experience of chimpanzees than to the experience of crickets, we do so because there is a relationship between the size and complexity of a creature's brain and its experience of the world.

Unfortunately, religion tends to separate questions of morality from the living reality of human and animal suffering. Consequently, religious people often devote immense energy to so- called "moral" questions - such as gay marriage - where no real suffering is at issue, and they will inflict terrible suffering in the service of their religious beliefs.

Consider the suffering of the millions of unfortunate people who happen to live in sub-Saharan Africa. The wars in this part of the world are interminable. AIDS is epidemic there, killing around 3 million people each year. It is almost impossible to exaggerate how bad your luck is if you are born today in a country like Sudan. The question is, how does religion affect this problem?

Many pious Christians go to countries like Sudan to help alleviate human suffering, and such behavior is regularly put forward as a defense of Christianity. But in this case, religion gives people bad reasons for acting morally, where good reasons are actually available. We don't have to believe that a deity wrote one of our books, or that Jesus was born of a virgin, to be moved to help people in need. In those same desperate places, one finds secular volunteers working with organizations like Doctors Without Borders and helping people for secular reasons.

Helping people purely out of concern for their happiness and suffering seems rather more noble than helping them because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it, or will punish you for not doing it.

But the worst problem with religious morality is that it often causes good people to act immorally, even while they attempt to alleviate the suffering of others.

In Africa, for instance, certain Christians preach against condom use in villages where AIDS is epidemic, and where the only information about condoms comes from the ministry. They also preach the necessity of believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ in places where religious conflict between Christians and Muslims has led to the deaths of millions.

Secular volunteers don't spread ignorance and death in this way. A person need not be evil to preach against condom use in a village decimated by AIDS; he or she need only believe a specific faith-based moral dogma. In such cases we can see that religion can cause good people to do fewer good deeds than they might otherwise.

We have to realize that we decide what is good in our religious doctrines.

We read the Golden Rule, for instance, and judge it to be a brilliant distillation of many of our ethical impulses. And then we come across another of God's teachings on morality: If a man discovers that his bride is not a virgin on their wedding night, he must stone her to death on her father's doorstep (Deuteronomy 22: 13-21). If we are civilized, we will reject this as utter lunacy. Doing so requires that we exercise our own moral intuitions, keeping the real issue of human happiness in view. The belief that the Bible is the word of God is of no help to us whatsoever.

As we consider how to run our own society and how to help people in need, the choice before us is simple: Either we can have a 21st-century conversation about morality and human happiness - availing ourselves of all the scientific insights and philosophical arguments that have accumulated in the last 2,000 years of human discourse - or we can confine ourselves to an Iron Age conversation as it is preserved in our holy books.

Wherever the issue of "moral values" surfaces, ask yourself which approach to morality is operating. Are we talking about how to best alleviate human suffering? Or are we talking about the whims of an invisible God?

Sam Harris is the author of Letter to a Christian Nation and The End of Faith. He can be reached through his Web site, samharris.org. This article first appeared in The Boston Globe.


America's midterm elections are fast approaching, and their outcome could well be determined by the "moral values" of conservative Christians.

While this possibility is regularly bemoaned by liberals, the link between religion and morality in our public life is almost never questioned.

One of the most common justifications one hears for religious faith, from all points on the political spectrum, is that it provides a necessary framework for moral behavior. Most Americans appear to believe that without faith in God, we would have no durable reasons to treat one another well. The political version of this morality claim is that the country was founded on "Judeo-Christian principles," the implication being that without these principles we would have no way to write just laws.

It is, of course, taboo to criticize a person's religious beliefs. The problem, however, is that much of what people believe in the name of religion is intrinsically divisive, unreasonable, and incompatible with genuine morality.

The truth is that the only rational basis for morality is a concern for the happiness and suffering of other conscious beings.

This emphasis on the happiness and suffering of others explains why we don't have moral obligations toward rocks. It also explains why (generally speaking) people deserve greater moral concern than animals, and why certain animals concern us more than others. If we show more sensitivity to the experience of chimpanzees than to the experience of crickets, we do so because there is a relationship between the size and complexity of a creature's brain and its experience of the world.

Unfortunately, religion tends to separate questions of morality from the living reality of human and animal suffering. Consequently, religious people often devote immense energy to so- called "moral" questions - such as gay marriage - where no real suffering is at issue, and they will inflict terrible suffering in the service of their religious beliefs.

Consider the suffering of the millions of unfortunate people who happen to live in sub-Saharan Africa. The wars in this part of the world are interminable. AIDS is epidemic there, killing around 3 million people each year. It is almost impossible to exaggerate how bad your luck is if you are born today in a country like Sudan. The question is, how does religion affect this problem?

Many pious Christians go to countries like Sudan to help alleviate human suffering, and such behavior is regularly put forward as a defense of Christianity. But in this case, religion gives people bad reasons for acting morally, where good reasons are actually available. We don't have to believe that a deity wrote one of our books, or that Jesus was born of a virgin, to be moved to help people in need. In those same desperate places, one finds secular volunteers working with organizations like Doctors Without Borders and helping people for secular reasons.

Helping people purely out of concern for their happiness and suffering seems rather more noble than helping them because you think the creator of the universe wants you to do it, will reward you for doing it, or will punish you for not doing it.

But the worst problem with religious morality is that it often causes good people to act immorally, even while they attempt to alleviate the suffering of others.

In Africa, for instance, certain Christians preach against condom use in villages where AIDS is epidemic, and where the only information about condoms comes from the ministry. They also preach the necessity of believing in the divinity of Jesus Christ in places where religious conflict between Christians and Muslims has led to the deaths of millions.

Secular volunteers don't spread ignorance and death in this way. A person need not be evil to preach against condom use in a village decimated by AIDS; he or she need only believe a specific faith-based moral dogma. In such cases we can see that religion can cause good people to do fewer good deeds than they might otherwise.

We have to realize that we decide what is good in our religious doctrines.

We read the Golden Rule, for instance, and judge it to be a brilliant distillation of many of our ethical impulses. And then we come across another of God's teachings on morality: If a man discovers that his bride is not a virgin on their wedding night, he must stone her to death on her father's doorstep (Deuteronomy 22: 13-21). If we are civilized, we will reject this as utter lunacy. Doing so requires that we exercise our own moral intuitions, keeping the real issue of human happiness in view. The belief that the Bible is the word of God is of no help to us whatsoever.

As we consider how to run our own society and how to help people in need, the choice before us is simple: Either we can have a 21st-century conversation about morality and human happiness - availing ourselves of all the scientific insights and philosophical arguments that have accumulated in the last 2,000 years of human discourse - or we can confine ourselves to an Iron Age conversation as it is preserved in our holy books.

Wherever the issue of "moral values" surfaces, ask yourself which approach to morality is operating. Are we talking about how to best alleviate human suffering? Or are we talking about the whims of an invisible God?

Sam Harris is the author of Letter to a Christian Nation and The End of Faith. He can be reached through his Web site, samharris.org. This article first appeared in The Boston Globe.

Hard to argue with Sam Harris on this.

But I'm sure many will.

The question for believers is, is a moral taboo wrong because God says so, or would it be wrong no matter what God says?

Something to ponder if a voice inside your head, or some other manifestation of divinity, instructs you to kill your own family (or your neighbors, or your co-workers, or complete strangers). Judging by the newspaper accounts, this is not an uncommon occurence.

There is something ignoble about people who must feel that they need an absolute morality externally imposed upon them, with sanctions (e.g. Heaven and Hell). And there is something very noble about people who are able to create their own morality and to take responsibility for it, and adjust it to reality and changing values, when necessary.
Children need a parental God; adults need freedom and responsibility.

Morality without god seems stronger, to me. More durable, more adaptable. Better equipped to deal with daily life ethical decisions.

I strongly agree with Rosbourne on this topic. Specifically regarding ethics being a means of survival, humans being social creatures who have banded together as a means of survival. We need each other, selfishness doesn't work all in all. There must be a level of co-operation, and co-operation amongst people has adapted beautifully with complex forms of communication. Empathy being a form of communication.

When tough decisions need to be made, I would much rather rely on the person whose morality is not based upon the messages from a god. I want to know the messages are coming from their own brain/heart/personhood.

Slightly off topic, but I have always considered that even if there were some god(s), he/she/it/them would not be the best to govern human affairs. That's our job! We know ourselves best, and we are the ones who must figure it all out.

To me, there is nothing particularly praiseworthy in a person performing a "moral" act because of an injunction from God that to do otherwise would lead to displeasing the deity. That kind of morality isn't really "moral" in my view. A person who does the right thing because he/she fears retribution is the same person who will commit an unspeakable act if it is justified as having been ordered by that same deity. The moral person is that person who acts according to the dictates of one's conscience regardless of the consequences, even should those consequences come as a result of having displeased some god.

Very well put, Andrew: the person who does "good" in obedience to a diety may also do "evil" in obedience to that same diety. Where's the morality in that? The Catholic emphasis on obedience is morally misguided.