Jamie_L

An arguement often raised against atheists is that we have no morals because we don't worship god, and all morals derive from god. One version of this arguement is that it is impossible to be moral without the guidance of god.

How do these theists feel with regard to followers of other religions? Assuming that the others are not following the "true god," do the theists in question feel that these others cannot possibly have morals either? That would be logical, sense the others do not have guidance from god, but rather are relying on "false" teachings.

It seems to me that if we accept the notion that "we need god for morality", then we must assume that most of the world cannot be moral, because they don't have the right god. The problem doesn't lie just with atheists, but with everyone who isn't following the "correct" religion.

On the other hand, if we admit that people of other relgions are moral, then this would seem to prove we don't need god for morality. Not the "true god" anyway.

Obviously, the answer is we don't need god for morality, but I'm curious as to how proponents of "god-derived morals" reconcile this. I'm probably asking this on the wrong board of course...

Jamie

dk

Jamie_L: An argument often raised against atheists is that we have no morals because we don't worship god, and all morals derive from god. One version of this argument is that it is impossible to be moral without the guidance of god.
dk: - Theism does not require all morals be derived directly from God. You may be confusing theism with monism. Theists believe the nature of reality to be pluralistic.
Jamie_L: How do these theists feel with regard to followers of other religions? Assuming that the others are not following the "true god," do the theists in question feel that these others cannot possibly have morals either? That would be logical, sense the others do not have guidance from god, but rather are relying on "false" teachings.
dk: - I don’t know how theists feel about the followers of other religion. Moslems and Hindus don’t seem to like one another much around the Balkans, India, and Far East. In Northern Ireland some Christians still divide on a line of Protestant and Catholic.
Jamie_L: It seems to me that if we accept the notion that "we need god for morality", then we must assume that most of the world cannot be moral, because they don't have the right god. The problem doesn't lie just with atheists, but with everyone who isn't following the "correct" religion.
dk: - From a monism perspective the universe represents [g][G]od][s][ess][es] in all its forms, hence all forms, concepts and abstracts are indistinguishable from god. From a theistic perspective God created the universe as a thing external to God’s being, and life as creatures exterior to God’s being. People, life, organic and inorganic things are what people conceive of in the basic units of 1) time, 2) mass, and 3) length (and derivative units). This concept entails a Divine Law that follows directly from God’s being, and the Natural Law that follows directly from the creation’s being. Morality follows from Natural Law with the particulars perceived by the senses, and then understood (rightly or wrongly) through judgments of the active intellect (reason). For example even the Laws of Nature are distinctly bounded by magnitude and scale, example quantum laws (very small), mechanical laws (perceived by senses), and cosmological laws (very large).
Jamie_L: On the other hand, if we admit that people of other relgions are moral, then this would seem to prove we don't need god for morality. Not the "true god" anyway.
dk: - I don’t see how such a conclusion can be drawn from the stated precepts. Morality follows from the Natural Law, and grace follows from the Divine Law. In fact a person can bypass the Natural Law altogether and appeal to grace, or even find grace through aspects of the Natural Law. People authored the wheel barrow for the author’s purposes, and in the same fashion Theists believe the Creator authored people for the Creator’s purposes. A wheel barrow remains contingent upon its author, in the same fashion people remain contingent upon God.
Theist observe that absent God people are lost without purpose. The secular world appears to agree, as evident in the fact that the vast majority of people are driven to believe in [g][G]od[s][ess][es].
Jamie_L: Obviously, the answer is we don't need god for morality, but I'm curious as to how proponents of "god-derived morals" reconcile this. I'm probably asking this on the wrong board of course...
dk: - Morals are derived from Natural Law, and grace is derived from Divine Law. Because God authored the Divine and Natural Law they are simpatico, but distinct. Since people are beings contingent upon Divine and Natural Law the assertion is pretext.

dk

Keith Russell

Greetings:

Morality derived from arbitrary, dogmatic claims is not rational; being derived from claims, rather than evidence.

Morality which is simply 'what the ancients said God said' cannot be proved, validated, or verified. IMO, such a morality is less than useless; in eschewing reason, it is dangerous.

Lastly, I have always understood 'theism' to mean 'having a beleif in God'. Thus, wouldn't monism be a type of theistic belief, rather than something other than theism?

What is the difference between 'monism' and 'pantheism'?

Keith.

dk

Greetings:
<ol type="1">[*] Keith Russell:Morality derived from arbitrary, dogmatic claims is not rational; being derived from claims, rather than evidence.
dk: To derive morality from a conundrum of logics, systems, paradoxes and propositions is incoherent, hence irrational. Nonetheless, a civilized society requires human conduct be suitably regulated, or the society will disintegrate into mayhem and chaos then die.[*]Keith Russell: Morality which is simply 'what the ancients said God said' cannot be proved, validated, or verified. IMO, such a morality is less than useless; in eschewing reason, it is dangerous.
dk: There’s nothing simple about regulating human conduct, people are very complex creatures. Under the tutelage of Comte, Marx, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Lock, Hume, Bentham etc... the 20th Century was the bloodiest in human history. Clearly the Middle Ages (15th Century) blossomed to become the Renaissance, and the Renaissance yielded to (19th Century) the brutality of the Industrial Revolution; and then from the Industrial Revolution sprang the horrors of imperialism, extreme materialism and weapons of mass destruction. Something went wrong. The modern era has not blossomed but deflowered the post modernist world. Around the world progress is being turned backwards by ignorance, drugs, pestilence, famine and war.[*]Keith Russell:Lastly, I have always understood 'theism' to mean 'having a beleif in God'. Thus, wouldn't monism be a type of theistic belief, rather than something other than theism?
dk: No, monism (Spinoza) is opposed to dualism (Descartes) and pluralism (multiplicity of things). The scheme of monism is a) one reality of many parts, b) a part being one aspect of the whole, c) one part the antithesis of another, or d) a unity of a higher order. Pluralism and dualism distinguish things in combination of matter, form, potentiality and actuality, the latter two pertaining to living creatures.[*]Keith Russell:What is the difference between 'monism' and 'pantheism'?
dk: Pantheism is a form of monism as Christianity is a form of pluralism.[/list=a]