Being that I don't believe in a conventional god and most certainly not one that created everything and is a centralized entity I believe morality is inherent in human beings. However, I will not expose my reasons why until some other people throw their hats into the conversation. What do you think? Can morality exist in the absence of god?
Morals seems to be based on society. If religion is a part of a society, the morals will mirror this. If not, the morals will still mirror what the society thing is wrong and right. You do not have to be religious to have a common thought that killing other human beings are bad, really.
Morals seems to be based on society. If religion is a part of a society, the morals will mirror this. If not, the morals will still mirror what the society thing is wrong and right. You do not have to be religious to have a common thought that killing other human beings are bad, really
I agree. I think that there are just certain moral imperatives contrary to the nature of human beings. We are biologically social creatures, it has been proven that if you are isolated you simply die faster. Thus, it would be inherent in our nature, in order to maintain society, to act in a way that is "moral" i.e. no murdering blah blah.
The interesting thing, is that morality was not a part of religion until the creation of monotheism. Ancient polytheistic gods were associated with seasons, people made sacrifices to them and what not but, obviously that has nothing to do with what we perceive to be morality within society today.
In this way, it seems to me that morality was only infused with religion in order for those who controlled religion to control large masses of people. This instilled the fear of punishment if they were unable to live up to some moral standard dictated to the religious hierarchy. I mean how motivated would you be to clean your room if your parents were threatening you with a white hot branding iron?
Yes, I have developed my understadning of morals without religon.
Exactly my thoughts (except the typos). Just because I don't believe that some all-powerful, all-knowing being decided to take time out of its busy schedule to send down a few prophets doesn't mean I'm going to go around killing people for the fun of it.
Just because I don't believe that some all-powerful, all-knowing being decided to take time out of its busy schedule to send down a few prophets doesn't mean I'm going to go around killing people for the fun of it.
This gets at the atrocity that has been and sometimes currently is mass organized religion. I doubt that an individual in Pakistan is born thinking that it is a moral act to blow themselves up in front of an orphanage but, their religion tells them to do so.
This is a much more interesting question to those who are theists than an atheist. I really like this question - it is a direct result of Euthyphro's Dilemma. But it only works if we believe there is a god. So perhaps for the sake of this thought experiment, we should all operate from this belief. To understand the question and its implications, here's the dilemma:
a) If morality exists independently of God, then it would seem that God is limited in His omnipotence. This view is called theistic intellectualism (if I recall correctly... I'm not a philosopher of religion). b) If, on the other hand, moral actions are dictated by God, then it seems that morality is arbitrarily based on His will, which isn't very satisfying. This view is (contemporarily) called the divine command theory.
The consequence of (b), which is the view many theists take, is that in the absence of God, there is no morality. As a theist, if you want to affirm that morality would exist without God, then you would have to accept (a), which limits the powers of God. So, which is a more tenable position?
The consequence of (b), which is the view many theists take, is that in the absence of God, there is no morality. As a theist, if you want to affirm that morality would exist without God, then you would have to accept (a), which limits the powers of God. So, which is a more tenable position?
This is interesting, but I think there might be a flaw here. If we are assuming there is a god, then he made us in his image, reflecting his morality. So I would say without RELIGION morality can exist, but without God, beings that even comprehend what morality is couldn't exist because it is a reflection of his morality.
If, of course, we assume there is no God, then it would be safe to assume that we formed morality on our own. Overall, I guess I would be saying without God there is no morality, simply because without God I believe there is no human being. But taking away RELIGION certainly doesn't take away morality. Hopefully I made sense here.
a) If morality exists independently of God, then it would seem that God is limited in His omnipotence. This view is called theistic intellectualism (if I recall correctly... I'm not a philosopher of religion).
Or, that God's omnipotence is not limited, but makes a conscious decision to not act; in which case he would seem.. malevolent or indifferent - to which I would think that we do not share his sense of morality. I always find people like to do away with having to answer such questions with responses to the like of "We're not supposed to understand god" to any question that challenges religion.
There's the other case that god is omnipotent, and wants to act or help, but cannot. Not really my idea of 'god' though.
Hopefully I made sense here.
You did. The faith is that god exists & created humans as we know them through whatever channel, and through that creative process imbedded morality.
It's not a typical theist observation/thought process, but then you're not what I would refer to as a typical theist I find most theists don't think morality is an innate concept; that it is something we learn from an external source - chiefly, reading the bible. While I would be inclined to agree - morality is shaped by what is acceptable in society and through what our parents teach us, but it is a meme that has developed & with or without religion, it is present in some human societies today.
Are you saying the question I posed only works if we assume god is real? Or are you saying that the question can only be framed within Euthyphro's Dilemma if we believe in god?
I find most theists don't think morality is an innate concept; that it is something we learn from an external source - chiefly, reading the bible. While I would be inclined to agree - morality is shaped by what is acceptable in society and through what our parents teach us, but it is a meme that has developed & with or without religion, it is present in some human societies today.
Also, does no one agree that morality could be a function of genetics? I mentioned before we are social creatures, so much so that it affects our physical well-being. In order to maintain relationships, it seems necessary to have morality. If we were all wolves unto eachother then there would be no motivation for having and maintaining any form of social structure.
Are you saying the question I posed only works if we assume god is real? Or are you saying that the question can only be framed within Euthyphro's Dilemma if we believe in god?
Yeah, I wasn't very clear there. I don't think the question works unless we accept there is a god - otherwise, the atheist could just answer "Yes, I have morals and an absence of god, so blah!" With the acceptance of a god, Euthyphro's dilemma is a direct consequence of your question. Perhaps the question can still be posed in a godless vacuum, but I don't think I would find it that interesting, as an atheist.
