Secular Elation

I have discovered a theist who presented the following argument. (He is commenting on a Bertrand Russel book.)

I must admit I am having difficulty refuting this. He claims that we need God to be moral. However, I find secular morals (such as humanist morals) are quite sufficient without God.

What do you have to comment?

[ May 14, 2002: Message edited by: Secular Elation ]</p>

Someone7

<a href="http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html" target="_blank">Euthyphro</a> by Plato
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/rape.html" target="_blank">Atheism, Christian Theism, and Rape</a> by Michael Martin

Eudaimonist

Since Russell denies the existence of God, he therefore denies immortality. But if life ends at the grave, then it makes no difference whether one has lived as a Stalin or as a saint.

It makes a difference while you are alive, which is when one makes moral decisions anyway.

Since one's destiny is ultimately unrelated to one's behavior, you may as well just live as you please (which is precisely how Ayn Rand validated human greed in her "objectivist" philosophy).

Bull Shit.

This guy is clueless.

99Percent

Since one's destiny is ultimately unrelated to one's behavior, you may as well just live as you please (which is precisely how Ayn Rand validated human greed in her "objectivist" philosophy).

We would be living like animals then. Non-theistic objective morality comes from man's ability to reason.

Pure indulgent self-interest is obviously very different from rational self-interest.

MadMordigan

In a world without God, who is to say that the values of Adolf Hitler are inferior to those of a saint?

I am. Me and General Eisenhauer.

Jamie_L

Even if what this guy argues is true, so what?

The fact that the world would be a better place with a God handing out objective morals does not make the existence of God true. The world would be a better place if there were no cancer. Should I therefore believe cancer does not exist?

The universe is what it is. Wishing it were another way is not proof that it is another way.

Nothing in the world cares about morality other than humans. Rocks don't. Plants don't. Animals don't. Only people. Why is it so hard to accept that we are the source of our own morality, when we are the only ones perceiving and engaging in it?

Jamie

Secular Elation

Actually, I do have something to say against this theist's argument.

I contend that morals do not come from God, but from nature - humans inherently know what is good and bad. For example, murder is bad, something society has agreed on. Furthermore, there are many Christians living today, and many from the past, who have done bad deeds (murder, other crimes). Apparently, even God's "objective morals" and a belief in an afterlife do not ensure a moral, rightful life!

Additionally, if atheists deny God and the afterlife, and if this is supposed to permit everything, then why aren't many athiests committing bad acts like murder? Millions of atheists, and few bad occurrences. Therefore, one can be moral and be godless! Sure, atheists have committed bad acts, and may do so in the future, but if the theist argument was any legitimate, most - if not all - atheists would be committing bad acts and think nothing of it!

Also, if God exists and he dictates what is right or wrong, what makes his moral code better than mine, especially if mine are similar or the same? If I believe, say, pedophilia is wrong, and God believes the same, then his code is no better than mine. The theist will argue that God can objectively enforce his morals by the threat of Hell. Without him, there is no enforcement. This is not true. When one committs a bad act, that person is imprisoned and/or shunned by society. This is punishment enough, and would deter some people from being bad. But then again, God's threat of Hell isn't completely effective, as I just stated.

Also, if God can forgive sins, then what is there to stop a person from committing a bad deed if he/she can get God to forgive him/her after it is committed?

Therefore, theistic ideas of morals and their enforcement are flawed.

[EDIT: Typos]

[ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: Secular Elation ]</p>

Secular Elation

The fact that the world would be a better place with a God handing out objective morals does not make the existence of God true.

That is not the concern of this thread, however. The concern is morals without god.

[ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: Grizzly ]</p>

bonduca

Given the current scandal in the Catholic church, that's pretty funny.

I think a definition of morality that involves examination of behavior and consequences is more stable and trustworthy than "God says to do it."

Just consider how many fundamentalist religious groups think God tells them to behave toward law-abiding homosexuals, or women who choose not to bear children. Or better still, come over to RRP and watch the theists discuss how God (using man as his tool) has every right to kill people who displease him.

I think a non-religious system of morals is actually a safeguard against that kind of madness.

[ May 15, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

JL

When Christians leap from the assertion by an atheist that their is no objective moral standard to the conclusion (if you can call it that) that all incentives of our being moral cease to exist were it so is absurd. How can they for one second ignore the good that comes from being a moral society? individual? They like to pretend their conscience is a product and part of God, that atheists may be in possession of one as strong and consistent as theirs in a way discredits their posturing.

Yeah, no kidding?