Morality without God

Reading the book is not required - it is just likely to be of interest in rpesenting an alternative view.However I have to ask why should it be moral to follow the purposes of our Creator ? Surely a purpose may be moral, immoral or either. It would not be moral to follow an immoral purpose even if it was the reaon why we were created. So I have to say simply following the Creator's purpose does not seem to be an adequate morality in itself - rather it is something that should be subject to moral judgements.I suspect this answer seems convincing to you because you assume that our Creator is a highly moral being and His purposes must be moral. However, unless He is following the purposes of His Creator He must have a standard of morality which has an entirely different basis. But if this is the case then surely it is at least possible in principle that we could use that standard rather than following the purposes of a Creator.

quote:

---

Ok, let's try to get back to the original question here, which was, why should individuals stive to keep the moral codes initiated by evolution if breaking the code gives the individual an advantage.

---

A system based only on cheaters will not function any more than an ecosystem with only carnivore predators. But systems do evolve that tolerate a low density population of cheaters who do gain an advantage by cheating. If everyone cheats, the benefit gained drops and the consequence of being unable to operate because of rampant cheating becomes intolerably high so cheating either goes down or the system/population collapses. Evolutionarily success for a population means that it survives and is better able to produce offspring than other populations. That is it. It does not say anything about the morality of the system.

quote:

---

What I still want to know is, why should these individuals NOT break the moral code when breaking it seems to help with their ability to survive and reproduce

---

Such individuals or groups are often brought into line depending on the circumstances and the consequences of their breaking moral codes.If it is not severe enough to cause a reaction among enough people, it is tolerated. As long as enough people think they are not financially affected by Wall Street cheating and also think they can benefit from the activities of Wall Street, they will look away when cheats are pervasive.Now my question to you is how does religion in any way shape or form prevent this? Religious people lie, cheat, steal and kill. The organizations to which they belong i.e. churches have advocated and supported the murder of millions of people. Wars are fought based on differences of religion. How has religion prevented the breaking of moral codes? As I see it, religion has been used as an excuse to break moral codes with the justification that "god/gods/mystical beings" wants it that way as often as it has been used to advocate anything else.

quote:

---

Ok, let's try to get back to the original question here, which was, why should individuals stive to keep the moral codes initiated by evolution if breaking the code gives the individual an advantage.

---

A system based only on cheaters will not function any more than an ecosystem with only carnivore predators. But systems do evolve that tolerate a low density population of cheaters who do gain an advantage by cheating. If everyone cheats, the benefit gained drops and the consequence of being unable to operate because of rampant cheating becomes intolerably high so cheating either goes down or the system/population collapses. Evolutionarily success for a population means that it survives and is better able to produce offspring than other populations. That is it. It does not say anything about the morality of the system.

quote:

---

What I still want to know is, why should these individuals NOT break the moral code when breaking it seems to help with their ability to survive and reproduce

---

Such individuals or groups are often brought into line depending on the circumstances and the consequences of their breaking moral codes.If it is not severe enough to cause a reaction among enough people, it is tolerated. As long as enough people think they are not financially affected by Wall Street cheating and also think they can benefit from the activities of Wall Street, they will look away when cheats are pervasive.Now my question to you is how does religion in any way shape or form prevent this? Religious people lie, cheat, steal and kill. The organizations to which they belong i.e. churches have advocated and supported the murder of millions of people. Wars are fought based on differences of religion. How has religion prevented the breaking of moral codes? As I see it, religion has been used as an excuse to break moral codes with the justification that "god/gods/mystical beings" wants it that way as often as it has been used to advocate anything else.

This thread has proven a point that I have stated repeatedly. Christianity (along with many other religions is a system of controlling a populace through fear. Many people in this thread seem like they would be more than happy to go on a murderous sadistic rampage if it were not for God's judgment of such actions. That alone is disturbing enough to set off a few internal alarms. What is frightening is that these people seem to have no regard for the fact that it could possibly just be wrong to hurt someone regardless of God's judgment, but rather only seem to base their moral code on what God says. This is the kind of mentality that has allowed the slaughter of countless people throughout history in God's name."Sure killing is wrong, unless of course it is an exception in God's name."This very idea is disturbing, that people of religious faith seem to have no moral or ethical compass of their own, but only God's morality to guide them. "If it weren’t for that whole eternal suffering thing, I would rape, torture, and kill." Now if that is not true, then how can you honestly question how it is possible for someone to have a decent moral and ethical code without God. Or if you knew you could go on a killing spree, without God's retribution would you do it? Say an angel appeared before you, and said God would allow you to do it, and would forgive you, would you, could you do it?I doubt it, which is exactly the point. Even if you knew God would forgive you for it, I doubt you would do it, because it is wrong. Because the intentional harm of others is the wrong thing to do.Now yes, there are plenty of people who will lie steal and cheat to advance themselves, and many of them are God fearing Christians. So apparently a belief in God does not inherently create a good moral code.

Greetings MrPhy42

quote:

---

This very idea is disturbing, that people of religious faith seem to have no moral or ethical compass of their own, but only God's morality to guide them. "If it weren’t for that whole eternal suffering thing, I would rape, torture, and kill." Now if that is not true, then how can you honestly question how it is possible for someone to have a decent moral and ethical code without God. Or if you knew you could go on a killing spree, without God's retribution would you do it? Say an angel appeared before you, and said God would allow you to do it, and would forgive you, would you, could you do it?

---

I have had this arguement several times at this site. It is exactly as you say. Those who posit that morality can only derive from a belief in god/gods/supernatural beings are themselves indicating a complete lack of morality. They are either only moral for the potential reward they might get or because they are afraid of being punished. In niether case are they refraining because they do not want to commit unethical acts but because of a percieved loss of benefit to themselves. Not exactly moral.

I agree though might (if push came to shove) say they do have one moral imperative: obey.That is certainly the whole of the law.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

I agree though might (if push came to shove) say they do have one moral imperative: obey.

---

But even that is malleable. One can disobey and claim that one is imperfect and seek absolution aka catholics. Thus, there is no imperative even to obey. But I do agree, most organized religions have only one imperative and that is obedience to what the church dictates, whether moral or not.

Why on all these posts are Christians being portrayed as blindly following decisions made for them? Why is it that you all seem to think that, just because I am a Christian, I lack the ability to reason for myself? Of course the Church makes mistakes, the beings that make up the Church are humans. God, in my belief, is the One that does not. I do have the ability to reason, and I simply have found that a belief in God and His Word make far more sense to me than simply living for yourself. Also, with the idea of populations tolerating a small group of cheaters, much the same way the enviornment tolerates carnivores, please read the book, "Thinking Strategically" to find out why this idea is flawed. I could explain it myself, but I don't have much time right now.

quote:

---

Why on all these posts are Christians being portrayed as blindly following decisions made for them? Why is it that you all seem to think that, just because I am a Christian, I lack the ability to reason for myself?

---

I think you are missing the point and thinking we are attacking you personally. The topic of the thread is "morality without god". My point is morality without god/supernatural would be no different than morality with god. You have been implying that if there was no god that humans would somehow fail to have checks on their lives at all and my point is that religion is absolutely no check on behavior and proclamation of ones being a "believer" is no measure of their morality...there are christians, muslims, etc. who claim to be following gods will, claim to have the moral high ground, and behave like asocial maniacs.

Not to changes the subject too much, but what about the issue or morality as it relates to homosexuality? I, for one, am sick and tired of hearing people refer to it as an immoral life-style. It’s not really a life-style. A gay or lesbian individual did not choose to be homosexual any more than a heterosexual chose to be so. They simply are who they are. Do we consider heterosexuality to be a life-style? Personally, I think not. Rather, a life-style is more along the lines of how we choose to go about our daily activities. I choose a life-style that includes many, many miles of bicycle riding and quite a few hours standing in a trout stream with a fly rod. That is my life—style, not the fact that I’m a blatant heterosexual. My life-style is not to be attracted to women (my genetics does that for me) but instead to do the things that makes life worth living. If I choose to be a swinger, or polygamous, or a night-time party animal, then that would be a life-style choice (and perhaps immoral...regardless of ones sexual preference), but not my predetermined sexual preference. Is this making any sense?This post is somewhat based on an interview I heard yesterday with Pat Buchanan on NPR in which he said he was opposed to gay marriage because he views it as an immoral life-style, which got me to thinking what planet is he really from? ( and I suppose would also be a nice topic for the thread asking if creationists should be allowed to hold positions of authority).

Old Testament
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination"Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"New Testament
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

I've yet to meet a homophobe who accepts that homosexuality is pre-determined.

Lam:Well ya got me there Lam. I guess we can only thank our lucky stars that we have available to us such a great pair of "books" that allows us to kill others in the name of our morality. Wait..isn't that an oxymoron?

Mr Jack:I would have to agree with this statement. I certainly don't pretend to know the "cause", but I do believe that evidence points towards genetics. Is this correct? Does anyone else know? To me, it's an important destinction to make if one person (or group I suppose) is to judge anothers moral character.

Just so you know, I'm a gay atheistic evo.