Can there be morality without God? What is the basis of "atheist morality"? (church, bible)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Atheists typically insist that they are as “moral” as anyone else and bristle at any suggestion that they lack “morality.” However, almost never is anyone really accusing atheists as a group of being objectively less “good” than Christians or Hindus.
The real issue is, what is the reference point – the standard – for an atheist’s supposed morality? Almost always we find that the morality claimed by atheists is really derived from some religious moral code (the Ten Commandments, for example) or combination of moral codes the atheists have simply appropriated for themselves.
“I don’t rape or murder,” an atheist may say. OK, fine, but what is the atheist’s standard for thinking that rape and murder are immoral? Not raping or murdering may be a rational decision. You won’t have to hide from the police or face life in prison if you don’t rape or murder. But this has nothing to do with morality. The law prohibits and punishes rape and murder, but the law prohibits and punishes lots of things that no one considers immoral. Whether something is illegal, even criminal, is a different matter from whether it’s immoral.
“Everyone just knows rape and murder are immoral,” the atheist may respond. But this begs the question. How and why does everyone know this?
A Christian has an easy answer: Our reference point is God, who has revealed himself in the Bible and the person of Jesus. God determines our morality. Moreover, we believe (as Romans 2:14-15 teaches) that the basic laws of God are written on the hearts of even nonbelievers (“They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them”).
(A popular question is whether something is moral only because God prohibits it. If God had said “Thou shalt rape,” would rape then be moral? The point that is missed by those who play this game is that God is perfect goodness – there is no morality apart from God, but the God whose very nature is perfect goodness would never have said “Thou shalt rape.”)
Christian apologists like Dr. Frank Turek accuse atheists of “stealing from God” because they say you can’t have a genuine moral code without a higher external standard – like God. You can have a personal opinion or a group consensus or even a law, but you won’t have morality.
I used to try to understand the atheist position by thinking that perhaps evolution rather than God might have written a basic moral code in the hearts of humans. Evolution would serve as the higher external standard, if you will. But this doesn’t work for lots of reasons, as even atheist spokesmen like Richard Dawkins recognize.
According to Dawkins, we are “survival machines created by our selfish genes,” whose only objective is survival. The goal of evolution isn’t truth or morality.
It’s an unsolved puzzle as to how consciousness could arise in a survival machine in a purely materialistic universe. It’s an equally unsolved puzzle as to how a process whose only goal is survival would or could have produced minds capable of discerning truth or morality.
If a process whose only goal is survival could have generated a code of conduct and hardwired it into humans, would it look anything like the Ten Commandments? Would it look anything like the morality that most atheists claim for themselves?
I think it’s pretty clear that moral codes, both religious ones and the ones that atheists claim for themselves, are aimed at controlling and restraining the selfish, survival-driven human traits that atheists believe evolution has produced (and that Christians believe sin has produced). Most moral codes don’t come close to fitting into any model of the “survival of the fittest.”
The notion of an evolutionary moral code is an oxymoron. “Thou shalt not rape” would mean nothing more than “Survival will be enhanced if you don’t rape.” It’s not at all clear that most of the behaviors that we commonly regard as immoral would adversely affect survival. The elimination of the elderly and the physically and mentally infirm, which most people would regard as immoral, would seemingly fit nicely in a purely survival-driven moral code.
Dawkins is at least honest in this respect. In a debate with a computer scientist who is also an evolutionist, the following exchange took place:
Jaron Lanier: “There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.”
Richard Dawkins: “All I can say is, ‘That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.’”
Dawkins argues for a kinder and gentler world in which the best human instincts predominate, but he can’t tell you why we have those instincts or why a purely survival-driven process would allow us to switch it off so they can predominate.
I find a world in which right and wrong are purely matters of personal opinion, power-group consensus or legislation to be a frightening thought. But it seems to me that this is the world that honest atheists are stuck with. They simply have no legitimate claim to an “atheist morality.”
Christians and other believers are, of course, capable of perverting or misapplying their moral codes. But the point I'm making here is that believers can legitimately claim to be following (or at least attempting to follow) a moral code while an atheist can't. Atheist "morality" is always going to be subject to shifts in societal norms or the dictates of whichever group happens to be in power, which is really no morality at all.
Ref point? The conscience, the light we were born with, the inherent knowledge of
right and wrong...varies from culture to culture.
As I have said before...my atheist friends would NEVER back into a car and say,"Let's get outta here FAST!" Like my Evangelical neighbor friend wanted to do...I said,"Hold ON!"
And straightened her out!
The law of the land counts big...do not steal, kill, push, slander people because they will bring you up on charges.
Watching the 2nd season of Fargo, a young boy of 7 was taught knifing a competitor
was 'right'....for his father to come out the winner.
Now, that boy's mind and heart would have been warped/hardened no matter what!
Atheists typically insist that they are as “moral” as anyone else and bristle at any suggestion that they lack “morality.” However, almost never is anyone really accusing atheists as a group of being objectively less “good” than Christians or Hindus.
The real issue is, what is the reference point – the standard – for an atheist’s supposed morality? Almost always we find that the morality claimed by atheists is really derived from some religious moral code (the Ten Commandments, for example) or combination of moral codes the atheists have simply appropriated for themselves.
“I don’t rape or murder,” an atheist may say. OK, fine, but what is the atheist’s standard for thinking that rape and murder are immoral? Not raping or murdering may be a rational decision. You won’t have to hide from the police or face life in prison if you don’t rape or murder. But this has nothing to do with morality. The law prohibits and punishes rape and murder, but the law prohibits and punishes lots of things that no one considers immoral. Whether something is illegal, even criminal, is a different matter from whether it’s immoral.
“Everyone just knows rape and murder are immoral,” the atheist may respond. But this begs the question. How and why does everyone know this?
A Christian has an easy answer: Our reference point is God, who has revealed himself in the Bible and the person of Jesus. God determines our morality. Moreover, we believe (as Romans 2:14-15 teaches) that the basic laws of God are written on the hearts of even nonbelievers (“They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them”).
(A popular question is whether something is moral only because God prohibits it. If God had said “Thou shalt rape,” would rape then be moral? The point that is missed by those who play this game is that God is perfect goodness – there is no morality apart from God, but the God whose very nature is perfect goodness would never have said “Thou shalt rape.”)
Christian apologists like Dr. Frank Turek accuse atheists of “stealing from God” because they say you can’t have a genuine moral code without a higher external standard – like God. You can have a personal opinion or a group consensus or even a law, but you won’t have morality.
I used to try to understand the atheist position by thinking that perhaps evolution rather than God might have written a basic moral code in the hearts of humans. Evolution would serve as the higher external standard, if you will. But this doesn’t work for lots of reasons, as even atheist spokesmen like Richard Dawkins recognize.
According to Dawkins, we are “survival machines created by our selfish genes,” whose only objective is survival. The goal of evolution isn’t truth or morality.
It’s an unsolved puzzle as to how consciousness could arise in a survival machine in a purely materialistic universe. It’s an equally unsolved puzzle as to how a process whose only goal is survival would or could have produced minds capable of discerning truth or morality.
If a process whose only goal is survival could have generated a code of conduct and hardwired it into humans, would it look anything like the Ten Commandments? Would it look anything like the morality that most atheists claim for themselves?
I think it’s pretty clear that moral codes, both religious ones and the ones that atheists claim for themselves, are aimed at controlling and restraining the selfish, survival-driven human traits that atheists believe evolution has produced (and that Christians believe sin has produced). Most moral codes don’t come close to fitting into any model of the “survival of the fittest.”
The notion of an evolutionary moral code is an oxymoron. “Thou shalt not rape” would mean nothing more than “Survival will be enhanced if you don’t rape.” It’s not at all clear that most of the behaviors that we commonly regard as immoral would adversely affect survival. The elimination of the elderly and the physically and mentally infirm, which most people would regard as immoral, would seemingly fit nicely in a purely survival-driven moral code.
Dawkins is at least honest in this respect. In a debate with a computer scientist who is also an evolutionist, the following exchange took place:
Jaron Lanier: “There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.”
Richard Dawkins: “All I can say is, ‘That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.’”
Dawkins argues for a kinder and gentler world in which the best human instincts predominate, but he can’t tell you why we have those instincts or why a purely survival-driven process would allow us to switch it off so they can predominate.
I find a world in which right and wrong are purely matters of personal opinion, power-group consensus or legislation to be a frightening thought. But it seems to me that this is the world that honest atheists are stuck with. They simply have no legitimate claim to an “atheist morality.”
Christians and other believers are, of course, capable of perverting or misapplying their moral codes. But the point I'm making here is that believers can legitimately claim to be following (or at least attempting to follow) a moral code while an atheist can't. Atheist "morality" is always going to be subject to shifts in societal norms or the dictates of whichever group happens to be in power, which is really no morality at all.
So are you saying you would be no idea that it is wrong to rape and murder if the Bible didn't tell you so?
The basis of morality is reciprocity. It is an instinct. It is enhanced by empathy (also an instinct) and the ability to see yourself in the other person't position, which comes from human reasoning ability.
Those are all the mental tools that morality needs. You can say that God gave them to us, or nature. That's a matter for personal belief, but it's where morality really comes from, and books are where morality gets written into, not where it comes out of.
To not harm others. We live in a society and wish to be treated well by others in the society. I think that refusing to bake a wedding cake harms those you discriminated against. Owning other human beings cause them harm. Asking your wife permission to have sex with her servant harms the servant. Polluting the environment harms everyone.
I see little benefit from a poster making long posts attempting to demonize atheists in an attempt to make his beliefs superior. Going to church and praying to God but withholding empathy from those less fortunate is not the road to higher moral grounds.
I would rather adapt and change what I consider moral the be forced to pigeon hole new things into what was believer 4000 years ago. Killing your enemy and taking their women for prizes is very outdated to be as is capital punishment.
He goes on to write some nice things about atheists.
He points to the Bible as a reference point for the moral code of people who are religious.
He asks what the reference point of atheists is or would be.
Although I am religious and had religious instruction as a child, at the time I grew up, TV was a big thing. And, television shows in the late 60s and early 70s were very social minded, so a lot of what I believe comes from different sources.
I have the 10 commandments in the Bible along with the loving nature of Jesus.
I have TV and books with social messages about acceptance and right and wrong based on the social movements of the time in which I grew up.
I would love to say my family was a reference point, but they were not, sadly.
Aside from not having religious instruction - if they didn't because not every atheist comes from atheist parents - I would think reference points for atheists wouldn't be much different.
You don't always need a punishment hanging over your head to make you want to do the right thing.
Atheists typically insist that they are as “moral” as anyone else and bristle at any suggestion that they lack “morality.” However, almost never is anyone really accusing atheists as a group of being objectively less “good” than Christians or Hindus.
The real issue is, what is the reference point – the standard – for an atheist’s supposed morality? Almost always we find that the morality claimed by atheists is really derived from some religious moral code (the Ten Commandments, for example) or combination of moral codes the atheists have simply appropriated for themselves.
“I don’t rape or murder,” an atheist may say. OK, fine, but what is the atheist’s standard for thinking that rape and murder are immoral? Not raping or murdering may be a rational decision. You won’t have to hide from the police or face life in prison if you don’t rape or murder. But this has nothing to do with morality. The law prohibits and punishes rape and murder, but the law prohibits and punishes lots of things that no one considers immoral. Whether something is illegal, even criminal, is a different matter from whether it’s immoral.
“Everyone just knows rape and murder are immoral,” the atheist may respond. But this begs the question. How and why does everyone know this?
A Christian has an easy answer: Our reference point is God, who has revealed himself in the Bible and the person of Jesus. God determines our morality. Moreover, we believe (as Romans 2:14-15 teaches) that the basic laws of God are written on the hearts of even nonbelievers (“They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them”).
(A popular question is whether something is moral only because God prohibits it. If God had said “Thou shalt rape,” would rape then be moral? The point that is missed by those who play this game is that God is perfect goodness – there is no morality apart from God, but the God whose very nature is perfect goodness would never have said “Thou shalt rape.”)
Christian apologists like Dr. Frank Turek accuse atheists of “stealing from God” because they say you can’t have a genuine moral code without a higher external standard – like God. You can have a personal opinion or a group consensus or even a law, but you won’t have morality.
I used to try to understand the atheist position by thinking that perhaps evolution rather than God might have written a basic moral code in the hearts of humans. Evolution would serve as the higher external standard, if you will. But this doesn’t work for lots of reasons, as even atheist spokesmen like Richard Dawkins recognize.
According to Dawkins, we are “survival machines created by our selfish genes,” whose only objective is survival. The goal of evolution isn’t truth or morality.
It’s an unsolved puzzle as to how consciousness could arise in a survival machine in a purely materialistic universe. It’s an equally unsolved puzzle as to how a process whose only goal is survival would or could have produced minds capable of discerning truth or morality.
If a process whose only goal is survival could have generated a code of conduct and hardwired it into humans, would it look anything like the Ten Commandments? Would it look anything like the morality that most atheists claim for themselves?
I think it’s pretty clear that moral codes, both religious ones and the ones that atheists claim for themselves, are aimed at controlling and restraining the selfish, survival-driven human traits that atheists believe evolution has produced (and that Christians believe sin has produced). Most moral codes don’t come close to fitting into any model of the “survival of the fittest.”
The notion of an evolutionary moral code is an oxymoron. “Thou shalt not rape” would mean nothing more than “Survival will be enhanced if you don’t rape.” It’s not at all clear that most of the behaviors that we commonly regard as immoral would adversely affect survival. The elimination of the elderly and the physically and mentally infirm, which most people would regard as immoral, would seemingly fit nicely in a purely survival-driven moral code.
Dawkins is at least honest in this respect. In a debate with a computer scientist who is also an evolutionist, the following exchange took place:
Jaron Lanier: “There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.”
Richard Dawkins: “All I can say is, ‘That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.’”
Dawkins argues for a kinder and gentler world in which the best human instincts predominate, but he can’t tell you why we have those instincts or why a purely survival-driven process would allow us to switch it off so they can predominate.
I find a world in which right and wrong are purely matters of personal opinion, power-group consensus or legislation to be a frightening thought. But it seems to me that this is the world that honest atheists are stuck with. They simply have no legitimate claim to an “atheist morality.”
Christians and other believers are, of course, capable of perverting or misapplying their moral codes. But the point I'm making here is that believers can legitimately claim to be following (or at least attempting to follow) a moral code while an atheist can't. Atheist "morality" is always going to be subject to shifts in societal norms or the dictates of whichever group happens to be in power, which is really no morality at all.
The answer is very simple and succinct. It's popularly called called the golden rule. The golden rule is the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated. It really covers most situations.
He goes on to write some nice things about atheists.
He points to the Bible as a reference point for the moral code of people who are religious.
He asks what the reference point of atheists is or would be.
Although I am religious and had religious instruction as a child, at the time I grew up, TV was a big thing. And, television shows in the late 60s and early 70s were very social minded, so a lot of what I believe comes from different sources.
I have the 10 commandments in the Bible along with the loving nature of Jesus.
I have TV and books with social messages about acceptance and right and wrong based on the social movements of the time in which I grew up.
I would love to say my family was a reference point, but they were not, sadly.
Aside from not having religious instruction - if they didn't because not every atheist comes from atheist parents - I would think reference points for atheists wouldn't be much different.
You don't always need a punishment hanging over your head to make you want to do the right thing.
Read closer.
OP also looks at evolution with the weakest of looks in trying to see how evolution moulded our morals. Survival of the fittest includes those that fit best into a society. No I don't take him as praising atheist other than a few backhand compliments 8f you can call that praise.
As far too goes the never changing morals of Christians, compare t9 what was moral for them under Clinton or Obama and what passes as morals today and ask what other than power shapes modern Christian morality..
You are probably correct that you got your morals from various sources I think every one of us has been influenced by friends family and society. That goes for both those who think their morals come from God and those who think it comes from within.
It's actually not that complicated. Another person's life and body do not belong to me. I have no claim on another person. Do most humans need a god to explain that to them?
Last edited by elyn02; 09-15-2018 at 02:06 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
