anonymous said...
i recently received a comment on one of my posts that is so disturbing i felt the need to write about it. here it is.
"Without God there is no morality."
i have heard this before and it seems that theologians that say this think it is a great philosophical statement. however anyone who buys into this hasnt really thought about what it says about religious beliefs. it makes the claim that people get their morals from god. that without god there is no right or wrong. they use it to claim that atheists are people without morals. but they dont see that what they are really saying is that the only reason they dont do things like steal, murder, beat their spouses and kids, or sexually assault their neighbors is because they are scared that an invisible guy who lives in the sky will punish them. that without that guy in the clouds telling them what not to do and threatening them, that they wouldnt have any idea that those terrible things wouldnt be ok. how is this not the statement of a raving lunatic? of course no one in their right mind would believe such a thing so the only other alternative is to admit that we have morals because they are necessary for the good of society and the survival of our species. we have morals regardless of our belief in gods. so what do we need religions for?
"Without God there is no morality."
i have heard this before and it seems that theologians that say this think it is a great philosophical statement. however anyone who buys into this hasnt really thought about what it says about religious beliefs. it makes the claim that people get their morals from god. that without god there is no right or wrong. they use it to claim that atheists are people without morals. but they dont see that what they are really saying is that the only reason they dont do things like steal, murder, beat their spouses and kids, or sexually assault their neighbors is because they are scared that an invisible guy who lives in the sky will punish them. that without that guy in the clouds telling them what not to do and threatening them, that they wouldnt have any idea that those terrible things wouldnt be ok. how is this not the statement of a raving lunatic? of course no one in their right mind would believe such a thing so the only other alternative is to admit that we have morals because they are necessary for the good of society and the survival of our species. we have morals regardless of our belief in gods. so what do we need religions for?
posted by veganerd at 7:06 AM
11 Comments:
That's a great dodge you pulled off, there. Or at least attempted.
First, there can be no right or wrong without some standard. There can be 'wrong for you' or something like that, but it's all subjective.
If there is no final, absolute moral authority then the worst serial killer in the world is cannot be 'wrong'. At best, to be consistent, you can only say I/we really don't like what he/she has done.
After all, it's all subjective.
If someone stood in front of you and eviscerated a 2 month old baby, how would you feel? Would you think that person had done something 'wrong'?
If you do, I ask the question "Sez Who?"... Who is fit to say that your impulses to call that a moral outrage is more 'evolved' than the killer's desires and impulses?
society says its wrong. there is an inherient drive to protect children. it exists in countless examples in nature. it is necessary for a species survival. have you ever seen what elephants do when a baby within the herd is threatened by predators? the entire herd surrounds the baby to protect it. not just the mother. do they do this because they read the ten commandments? no because the baby may die. they risk their own lives to protect the future of the species. even before i became a parent i would have gladly risked my life to protect any child in danger. its an instinct that most people feel. even atheists.
"After all, it's all subjective"
and religion isnt? how many different religions and denominations have formed because they interpret the exact same bible differently?
society says its wrong.
On what basis? Public opinion? Modern enlightened thought?
Society has said a lot of things that we would consider immoral. So, was Hitler morally justified simply because the cultural context he operated in validated his approach?
and religion isnt [subjective]? how many different religions and denominations have formed because they interpret the exact same bible differently?
I can't speak for 'religion'. However, I would say that Christianity is not subjective. It is, by nature, a statement of objective truth. Our ability (or inability) to grasp it is not the issue.
Do you support abortion? Is that a threat to the species? If not, how is the destruction of potential life different than the destruction of existing life?
If all our morality is simply the result of naturalistic processes there is nothing absolute. The rapist down the street might just be the next evolutionary step (and we haven't caught on yet).
To posit any moral absolute (either from a 'encoded' moral law or an evolved one) begs for the identification of the moral law giver.
Otherwise, 'Sez who?'.
Heavydluxe.. I've read your blog, I've read your comments. Sometimes I disagree, but this time I had to step up and speak. You said "Society has said a lot of things that we would consider immoral. So, was Hitler morally justified simply because the cultural context he operated in validated his approach?"
I understand my comment is off the basis of the original blog, but I must say Heavydluxe, I for one DO believe Hitler was justified, justified under God. He lived in a country where the people wanted him for a leader, they believed his morals, and they followed his commands. Some say people have freedom of choice, and they do, until they are saved. A saved soul no longer is responsible for their own thoughts, actions, emotions, and so on. The Nazi's were a saved people. I know this because God would not allow a single man to achieve such greatness if he were not under his order. Hitler rose because his society followed, just like the children followed Jesus. I for one do not believe in the same morals as Hitler, because I am not meant to. God had a plan for Germany, and God has a plan for me, and my country.
My Hitler is George W. Bush.
I am a saved man. I will follow our President through the sands of Iraq and slay any man, woman, or child he sees fit! I know in my soul that God has appointed our leader Bush to do great things for the American people. I know God has appointed Bush simply because he is the most powerful man on the planet. Everyone knows that. You may argue that Bin Laden is powerful, you'd be correctomundo! I for one do not hate Bin Laden. No, he does not believe in my Christ, but God must have seen his wealth and leadership skills and so decided to appoint him power and a plan to carry out. How can I hate a man so close to God? Can you? I believe Bin Laden will be awarded complimentary entry into heaven, afterall, it is not his mind nor brain making the decisions, he is merely a puppet being held by strings by the heavens.
Point is, any large society following a great political figure, is following the way of God. He simply wouldn't allow it otherwise. If Bin Laden tells his crew to suicide bomb a post office, we can't blame them. If Bush says go to war with Iraq, get ready to fight. God needs this war, catastrophic situations will occur if it doesn't.
God Bless America!
"On what basis? Public opinion?"
yes. is murder illegal because the bible says so or because its bad for society and most people find it intuitively wrong? if you think because of the bible then where do other laws come from? what does the bible have to say about speeding, gas prices, insurance, movie ratings or the fcc? all things which are governed by laws but didnt exist at the time the bible was written. why is it so hard to grasp that societies can collectively say that its not good to lie, steal, or murder but we can somehow come up with other rules to live by without the help from gods?
"Do you support abortion"
not necessarily but i do support the choice.
"how is the destruction of potential life different than the destruction of existing life?"
how can you not see the difference? could you see the difference in destroying thosands of potted seeds in a greenhouse versus cutting down thousands of trees from a forest? which is more harmful?
"was Hitler morally justified simply because the cultural context he operated in validated his approach?"
obviously he wasnt. while he did have support his actions certainly werent supported by the majority. im assuming you have heard of ww2?
"If all our morality is simply the result of naturalistic processes there is nothing absolute"
so what. some things change. it used to be considered immoral by many to have interracial marriages, to listen to rock music, and to wear skirts above the ankles. what does societies morality have to say about that now?
if god says thou shall not kill, is that absolute? if so why does he then order wars? doesnt sound absolute to me. he didnt say dont kill unless i say so. so where do you get the idea that morals are absolute?
holy shit! did you read that anonymous comment? someone put a couple extra spoonfulls of crazy on their fruit loops.
did you read that anonymous comment?
Yes... I found it ironical.
Following the Hitler theme:
while he did have support his actions certainly werent supported by the majority.
Ahhh... I get it. Morality is decided by a majority vote and "might makes right". While we both know that isn't right, it is the logical end to a subjective morality.
You mention that you favor 'freedom of choice' re: abortion. If a majority of Americans felt differently and the right to abortion was taken back, I'm assuming that you'd quietly go along with the majority rule. Right?
what does societies morality have to say about that now?
Ah... So, the evolution of society is always positive? So, if we start pro-actively euthanizing senior citizens because they've outlived their usefulness, you'd view that as a positive change, assuming that the majority agree... Right?
It certainly is a logical, naturalistic path.
Just one last aside to anonymous:
I for one DO believe Hitler was justified, justified under God. He lived in a country where the people wanted him for a leader, they believed his morals, and they followed his commands.
While I believe that no ruler comes to power without God's permissive will, I certainly don't think that God 'justifies' their conduct. A simple look at the kings of Israel after David shows that pretty plainly.
God needs this war, catastrophic situations will occur if it doesn't.
God needs nothing. If He felt 'need', it would demonstrate a failing/gap in His character. And that's not God.
no i dont think that might makes right. but i do think that society forms a consensus for some basic morals. obviously some people will have different ideas about what morals are important and which ones arent. morals also change throughout ones lifetime. i wasnt always vegan but about 11 years ago my morals changed. another thing about morals is they are not absolute. i am not for murder however i would be absolutely suspend that ideal in certain circumstances such as the need to protect someone. if my family or even your family was being brutally attacked i would defend them by killing the attacker if necessary. i am assuming that you would do the same.
"God needs nothing. If He felt 'need', it would demonstrate a failing/gap in His character. And that's not God."
why does he need you to obey his rules?
obviously some people will have different ideas about what morals are important and which ones arent. morals also change throughout ones lifetime.
So, you mention your opposition to murder. I'm also going to assume that your opposed to racism.
If racism again became a dominant cultural ethic (the majority view), you'd be supportive of that... Right?
After all morals evolve over time and consensus determines validity.
why does [God] need you to obey his rules?
He doesn't. I need to play by the rules for my own benefit. God is not lessened if I disobey, but I put myself in peril.
"If racism again became a dominant cultural ethic (the majority view), you'd be supportive of that... Right?"
(first there is a difference between morals and ethics)
no. i would maintain my current views on racism and fight against the dominant mindset. but if i were born after racism became the norm maybe i would be racist too but i would like to think that i wouldnt be and it is possible that i would be against it. like i said before people can have different morals and even those with the same morals can rank them differently. for example, two mormons can be against homosexuals and drinking alcohol but mormon "a" thinks that being gay is worse than having a beer but mormon "b" believes the opposite. they have the same morals but feel differently about them.
just because the majority holds a view doesnt mean that i cant have different one. for example, the majority of people feel that eating animals is a great thing. i dont. (although my view is becoming more and more common) perhaps in 50 years the majority wont eat meat. but untill then i will have a different moral than most.
Hi! Just want to say what a nice site. Bye, see you soon.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home