I’m sure this has been done before, but I’ve been lurking since November and I haven’t seen it done for a while. Just to clarify, I am not religious. Not even close.
If we picture a truly godless society, what keeps us in line besides the notion of getting thrown in prison? I know this will lead to an argument of “If I don’t believe a perfect love exists, how can I still strive to love?”
Do we need a God in order to overcome our “human nature” and “primal instincts?” How much of society is instictual in humans?
Is there something that we can discover about ourselves using science and reason that should lead us to believe that smacking your neighbor around is wrong? Many social structures in the wild are cruel and unforgiving – if you challenge the dominant leader and lose, you are ejected from the herd. Is this a useful model for human society?
Here is just a fragmented example :
If two people agree to have a fight to the death (assuming it is totally consensual), why is it inherent in society to stop those people? It sure wouldn’t be stopped in a herd of animals. Is the only reason because we believe in a higher moral?
There are lots of ways to answer that. Anything from utilitarinism, to a socity of Hobbes’s Leviahthain.
I think that you are making a fundemntal mistake though, assuming that humans are naturaly selfish.
If anything, I would say that through history we have noticed three distinict tendacies of humanity (wheter they be found in religion or not)
Selfishness or Hedonism
Altruism
Aseticisim
The first tends to predominate much of the of the English philoshpy that we are famliar with and the second tends to predominate much of the eurpoian religously based philosphies. The thrid tends to be found in the east to a much much greater degree.
But I guess you were asking how do we have morals in a socitey without a God? So you’re probably looking for a focus on altruism. Well, I’d say the best authority to check on that is the scientific humanists. … they certinaly are the prevalent group in my mind.
I think all morals are governed by social law. And that we create rules in religion to reinforce these morals. Therefore, religion and higher meaning is not intrinsic to morality.
I’m not sure I understand the question. I mean I understand why the question would be posed. Religion has certainly been used a a motivator for moral behavior. Although in so many cases it is hard to distingush from a threat of prison-don’t do that the cops’ll get you, don’t do that, god’ll get you.
Is it really so clear that religion breeds a higher moral sense?
As an agnostic raised by an agnostic who was raised by an agnostic I can’t say I’ve always been moral, but I’ve tried, and I think I feel just as bad about my failures as a theist. Moreover, I am not keeping some barely suppressed homicidal urges under raps because I’m afraid of prision. I have no desire to hurt anyone else. It would cause me pain to hurt anyone else. This is because I’m capable of empathy. I see this as coming from being raised by a loving (non-religious) mother.
And I’d say empathy is just as much a “natural” urge as cruelty, probably more so. It does seem to crop up in anyone exposed to it.
P.S. Fighting to the death was the prefered way of settling legal disputes for hundreds of years in Christian Europe.
The same thing that keeps agnostics and atheists “in line” right now. It would just be extended to a larger part of the population.
Besides, some of those who do believe in God still are not moral. Check any prison and you’ll find any number of “Christians” and “Muslims” and the like.
I brought this subject up at LBMB (if you’ve been lurking since November, you no doubt recall the “invasion” of and from that Christian message board), and even the (mostly) conservative Fundies there pretty much concurred that, sure, an athiest could be perfectly moral!
They’d still go to hell, however…
Look up “Humanist” sometime in your favorite search engine sometime.
Yer pal,
Satan
[sub]I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Three months, three weeks, five days, 11 hours, 28 minutes and 33 seconds.
4699 cigarettes not smoked, saving $587.39.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 2 days, 7 hours, 35 minutes.[/sub]
"Satan is not an unattractive person."-Drain Bead
[sub]Thanks for the ringing endoresement, honey!*[/sub]
It really troubles me how many of my co-religionists seem to feel that the fear of God’s wrath is the only thing preventing them from a life of rape, pillage, and arson.
Both Triskadecamus and I are on record as saying that if someone were to offer us unquestionable proof that the God in whom we believe does not in fact exist, it would not change our moral code or faith one whit. (Lib., I apologize for not including you here, but I don’t recall your addressing the question – in any case, yours would be flavored by your Objectivism.)
Every human being devises his own moral code based on his personal ethic. For many religious people, this consists in adherence to a set of standards set forth by his religion. (This can be either “bad” or “good” from an irreligious perspective: contemplate some of the judgmentalistic clowns from the New Years’ invasion, but then contemplate Chaim Keller and Zev Steinhardt as examples of the opposite.) For most atheists, a humanistic moral code founded on some of the general principles of Western ethics seems to fit – and these are derived in a very general way from the interfoliation of the Greek and Roman cultural mores, the Teutonic tribal ethics, and the teachings of Judaism, Christianity, and to a lesser extent Islam. For a true sociopath, the moral code is nasty, brutish, and short: “Me first; nobody else counts.” But it is nonetheless a moral code, albeit one that nobody else would want to adhere to. I find that in most debates on whether something is “right” I find that I am usually on the side of the “enlightened atheists” along with the UU and seeker posters against the “devout Christian” contingent, who have for the most part found some clause in their understanding of Scripture that sets them as judges over the behavior of their fellow man. For me, adherence to the moral code that Jesus taught causes me to reject that view. Jeffery is, of course, an example of a Christian who lives by a conservative Christian moral code that includes, along with the legal strictures, the injunction not to judge, lest I be accused of Christian-bashing. And Snark is a fine example of someone who is not prepared to judge people in the same boat he is but adheres to a personal moral code that rejects their behavior as immoral.
Most atheists, in my opinion, live by the law that Jesus taught as regarding their fellow man; they simply reject the other half of his teachings, about God, as “not proven.”
I believe that I am on record as saying that without my faith, I would be an existentialist (since that is what I used to be). Morality would consist of whatever benefitted and validated my own existence. It was my faith that made me aware that the rest of you actually are real people, and not just bit players in my movie. Your reference frames are as valid as my own.
How did my faith lead me to this conclusion? Simple. I learned that we are not atoms; we are Spirit. There is only one reference frame that matters, the Absolute One.
The question that I would put to athiest is: are you sure that your belief in morality is not an adjustment to a world dominated by religion?
No one wants to say, or think, that according to their beliefs there is no logical basis for any morality at all. That the logical extension to their beliefs would be that one may kill as many people as one wished etc. But this is in part because these notions are universally reviled by society. So there is an enourmous incentive for anyone, including athiest, to find some sort of basis to have a moral code. But the world at large has formed it’s opinions on morality based, to a large extent, on religion. The question is, if religion would disappear, would the phlosophical and non-religious basis for morality be sustainable on it’s own, or would society’s morality slowly disintergrate?
I think laws express of the dominant concept of a society’s morality and not, in any way, dictate or affirm individual morality. The fact that murder is illegal does not make a decision to kill any more morally torturous for one who is of a mind to do so.
A number of things could happen. It’s silly to make an affirmtive argument one way or the other becuase the variables are far to murky to have a good grasp upon.
Though one tentative argument I would make is that we would still have a morality, but our morality would be based upon the single precept, ** “do what ever you want, so long as it doesn’t interfere or harm what someone else wishes to do.” ** I’d say that in fact, this is the very moral that postmodernism seems to have given risen to in society today. (at least in our western soceity)
The reason I’d put this forth is because it satisfies both the ideologys of selfishness and altruism. The first in that I don’t mess with others, they don’t mess with me, the second in that I don’t mess with anothers right to be happy. This rule seems to fit a vast number of philosphical sytems, and can likley be applied to almost any given senario.
(I should note that I don’t actualy hold this as one of my own morals… In fact I find it very misleading, but that’s not really what we’re talking about here, so I’ll leave things at that. )
I consider myself moral, and I believe less and less of the Bible every day. Granted, I’d still like to maintain a spot for God in my universe, but He is quickly being relegated to role of a sideline judge.
To play devil’s advocate :
I suppose what I am trying to get at is moral relativism. For instance, Guinness beer is brewed until some old guy tastes the mix, and decides its done. Therefore, with no continuous standard, Guinness beer changes taste over generations, and over the old guy’s lifetime as his tastes change.
We can make some steadfast rules without God – hurting someone is wrong, murder is wrong, stealing private property is wrong. But considering the lows that human civilization is capable of (Nazi Germany stands out here), it is kind of comforting to have the absolute moral yardstick.
Granted, the markings of the yardstick have been corrupted every which way since Sunday, often done to justify the yardstick in the first place. But, there is always room in society then to refer to an example of a higher morality, something which is sin-free. To cross threads again here, I know it is wrong to use Napster, even though I do. I can’t justify my usage – I know it is wrong.
With no religious yardstick, will we become, excuse my butchering, more morally relative? With only history and the cruel laws of nature to guide us, will we be able to maintain that social standard? Social Darwinism seems to fit the bill here – if we can start saying someone is less fit to be in society, because that is what “science” says, how much room do we have before we are back at the Nazis?
I don’t think science can be as good of a standard bearer for morality as religion has for over 4000 years. I’m sure there’s some of you that would say that you can’t do much worse than religion. But I’d maintain fewer people have been killed in the name of God than killed in the name of economy/ego/power which are all by-products of the science of society.
So many things in your post bother me. For one thing, I question your statement: “But I’d maintain fewer people have been killed in the name of God than killed in the name of economy/ego/power which are all by-products of the science of society.” I think you are wrong, but even if your statement is correct, how can you justify even one murder in the name of God? I have seen all manner of evil justified by invoking God - persecution of Jews, slavery, murder, hatred to name but a few. How can you argue that God provides man with an absolute moral yardstick? And whose God? Even if we assume that God is absolute, man’s perception of him is not. I suggest that with religion, morality is relative.
You seem to be saying that our morality comes from God. I think you have it backwards. Our sense of God comes from our moral sense.
If God provided an absolute moral yardstick, then that would be comforting; but it seems clear that God has not provided an absolute anything to man.
Granted. But science doesn’t make claims about morality. Religion does. (And should.)
I’ve known a few offensive atheists who are actively antagonistic toward religion. The majority of agnostics and atheists, however, mostly object to being proselytized by some of the more aggressive theists.
Economy, ego, and power have always been a part of every human society, religious or secular. It is possible that they are more destructive when amplified by technology, but the impulses themselves have nothing to do with science.
Actually, I think just that. There is no logical basis for any moral code. Without religion, morality can not be justified, and with it the only justification is “do this because you’ve been told to do it by someone who knows better”. Ultimately, I would say the prevelent morality mostly derives from society’s standards of what will increase stability, but an effort is made to cast these moral codes as somehow inherently “right” to increase their effectiveness.
