Is God Necessary For Morality

[OntheWindowStand]

The problem with this theory is that people want to be moral for a greater good without a god what is that good? And people are not naturally moral rather selfish and immoral and the if evolution existed why would morality be something it made it inhibits survival in many cases like with the poor or persecuted

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

It is certainly as you have described it, unfortunately it becomes material and necessary and thus fails to fall into the traditional and useful definition of morality.

There is no accepted definition of morality or else their would not be rape, murder, and mayham; and those who try to approach a definition through reason are the furthest from the mark. There is only one reason to treat others with respect, and caring, and morally; and it is because you can love them, and see yourself in them. We are most likely to pain those who least seem like us with the greatest immorality. The only reason we need find in order to act morally is reason to identify with our victims so we can make them our friends. What do you think

[Master Pangloss]

We are massively over-simplifying this issue. We must be careful not to presuppose the conditions for our arguments. It seems to me that those who want to connect God and morality presuppose that God exists, and use that as leverage to establish an objective morality, and those who insist they are not connected presuppose God's nonexistence for the same reasons. This is called a fallacy of necessity. So what is really going on here? We have atheists and theists arguing over a practical issue in order to justify their worldview on a practical level. e.i. "I don't believe God exists, so here is a bunch of evidence to show that I can be morally responsible even though I'm an atheist." Unamuno wisely said that "Often, what we believe to be the motives for our cunduct are usually but the pretexts for it." The real questions here are does God exist? And can morality be objective? Niether of which are answerable on a purely philosophical level. The bottom line is that a Christian can do just as much evil as an atheist, and an atheist can be just as virtuous as any Christian. The only difference is that a God can pardon and manipulate. But the athiest is abandoned and without excuse. He is utterly responsible and must live with the consequences of his actions. Which do you think is more valuable on the ethical plane?

[Theaetetus]

Originally Posted by Master Pangloss

The real questions here are does God exist? And can morality be objective?

The first question is a matter of faith, and it is pretty much pointless to use reason to argue faith. The second question is easy to answer. Morality is not objective. While some moral codes may appear to be objective they are still subjective, but the majority of the people may hold the code. Morality is an interpretation of perceived right and wrong, thus a subject is required for a moral.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by OntheWindowStand

The problem with this theory is that people want to be moral for a greater good without a god what is that good?

Why do you assume that someone needs a universal moral? Why can't I do something good because of how it makes me feel? Why can't I do something good because I identify and empathize with others? Why can't I do something good because I have a guilty conscience and I fear doing something bad? Why can't I do something good because I feel that good treatment of others is how I'd want to be treated myself were the roles reversed?

And people are not naturally moral rather selfish and immoral

That has been soundly refuted in the cognitive science literature.

and the if evolution existed why would morality be something it made it inhibits survival in many cases like with the poor or persecuted

You are proposing here some pure live-or-die scenario that simply does not exist. If I read you right you're saying that being "moral" inhibits survival among those who might survive by killing or stealing, right?

Fact is, the world ain't like that. Yes, it's a hard world, but it's not so simple. Cognitive science studies that compare infant humans to infant chimps show that there is comparable intelligence, language, and motor development up through a year or two of age. But the one HUGE difference is social development. Humans are primarily different from other animals because we are so much more socially complex. All the other stuff, like inventiveness and technology is purely the result of having cooperative societies in which invention is possible.

So we are innately empathetic by virtue of our social instincts. And because of that we are innately reluctant to commit (or even witness) acts of violence. This trait may marginalize the impoverished individual, but it's essential to our communal survival. And remember that evolution is not about individuals, it's about populations.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Theaetetus

The first question is a matter of faith, and it is pretty much pointless to use reason to argue faith. The second question is easy to answer. Morality is not objective. While some moral codes may appear to be objective they are still subjective, but the majority of the people may hold the code. Morality is an interpretation of perceived right and wrong, thus a subject is required for a moral.

Faith is a moral rather than a physical reality, and as such it is the property of philosophy. For our purposes, we cannot answer whether God does, or does not exist. We can say the same of justice, or virtue, or vice, as with all other moral realities. So the question becomes, not whether, or if God exists; but what is its meaning. If a person, believing in God does good, the meaning of God is good. If one does harm with his belief in God, then its meaning is harmful. It is not necessary to prove the being to show the meaning. If we could prove the existence of God, it would become the property of the physical sciences, and while it would still have some moral meaning, meaning would be generally disregarded in the desire to harness it as usable power. What point has any God if it cannot be moved by prayers or bribery, after all.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Fido

What point has any God if it cannot be moved by prayers or bribery, after all.

Heh, interesting point. Even the Calvinists, who of course believed in strict divine determinism, did things to try and curry favor.

[Doobah47]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

Is there a moral divinity separate from humanity (not fundamentally) that has influence on our moral judgement? NO!!

Surely this is a confusion of morals and ethics. Morals intend to provide values of good/bad, or preferrably acceptance/rejection, so surely there is a divine moral code that cites interaction as a good/acceptable process. If one considers existence to be divine (obvious) then the format (that we know of) of existence is interaction; interaction with dimensions (movement), with other entities (chemical reaction) or interaction with metaphysics (interaction with concepts). Is it obvious that existence is predisposed to interact with itself hence interaction is universally 'good/acceptable'?

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Doobah47

Surely this is a confusion of morals and ethics. Morals intend to provide values of good/bad, or preferrably acceptance/rejection, so surely there is a divine moral code that cites interaction as a good/acceptable process. If one considers existence to be divine (obvious) then the format (that we know of) of existence is interaction; interaction with dimensions (movement), with other entities (chemical reaction) or interaction with metaphysics (interaction with concepts). Is it obvious that existence is predisposed to interact with itself hence interaction is universally 'good/acceptable'?

Ethics and morals have come to mean different thing, but morals was first coined, I think, by Cicero to have the same meaning as ethics and it is difficult in my opinion to depart far from that perspective. I use moral, much as others use the word morale, exprit de corp, the spiritual condition rather than the physical condition. We have no good word other than moral for all those questions of social reality upon which so much depends but of which no part can be measured. To humanity all that is not physical is moral, without being, having meaning. Yet, this does not exclude ethics which comes from custom, or character which guided primitives much as road maps guide travelers. As it is impossible for a person alone, outside of society to be moral, or immoral since these are guides of behavior in relation to others, so it was for primitives, impossible, without a modern conception or justification for individualism, to be immoral unless crazy. If your identity is recieved from the group, and is as a member of that group, and only the group will judge you fairly, then it is impossible for the person to concieve of himself apart from his people. To turn on the group would be like self injury or suicide; and not rational. And to be scapegoated, and driven out of the community was a sentence of death, and a terrible punishment. So morals and ethics seem to be the same quality seen from a different perspective, and so not really different at all.

[Doobah47]

Originally Posted by Fido

To humanity all that is not physical is moral, without being, having meaning. Yet, this does not exclude ethics which comes from custom, or character which guided primitives much as road maps guide travelers.

I do not follow; surely 'ethics' is the moralizing of interactions between phenomenon (even the entirely imaginary, for the conscious is surely perceived), 'morality' provides the means of 'ethics'.

I could not concur that all non-physical conceptions require/present a moral definition - morality is a process with an end/definition, it is surely not an inevitable associate to any concept; if one were to believe that all conceptions were linked to a moral definition then how could one ever doubt the moral value of a concept, would not the notion of moral evaluation thus separate from the concept, leaving the concept free from it's association with morality? The concept ceases to be a moral concept if the moral value is non-existent, which it surely is when in doubt of the moral value.

As it is impossible for a person alone, outside of society to be moral, or immoral since these are guides of behavior in relation to others, so it was for primitives, impossible, without a modern conception or justification for individualism, to be immoral unless crazy.

You seem to be saying now that morality is a decision made by others, whereas before you said morality was an associate of non-physical conception. How can there exist such potential for conflation when such a word as "ethical" exists. I find the your differentiation within "morality" ridiculous - although I infer that one's perception of another member in a society constitutes a non-physical conception, and perhaps I agree.

Judgement of non-physical concepts is how you began, then you lead to the judgement by one of another, surely this is a judgement only of the object's behaviour, for how could one possibly perceive the non-physical aspects of the object? I think your statement is reasonably conceived as a physical piece of nonsense which presents itself as seemingly non-physical meanings (borne of language, though not devoid of a physical existence, and physical consequence).