The real question should be, 'define morality'. Unless morality is God (the highest standing example of achievements and ideals).
According to dictionary.com, the definition is, "conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct, a doctrine or system of morals."
My favorite definition of God was the following: "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe." Note 'perfect' and 'originator'.
For most, God is necessary. Because he invented their system of morals, and epitomizes it. God is essentially a philosopher.
I think philosophers are necessary for morality. They invent ways to go about living; show examples of why this is necessary, and explain what not to do. And that is exemplified in the Bible, the Torah, the Qur'an, et cetera.
The real question should be, 'define morality'. Unless morality is God (the highest standing example of achievements and ideals).
According to dictionary.com, the definition is, "conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct, a doctrine or system of morals."
My favorite definition of God was the following: "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe." Note 'perfect' and 'originator'.
For most, God is necessary. Because he invented their system of morals, and epitomizes it. God is essentially a philosopher.
I think [i]philosophers[/i] are necessary for morality. They invent ways to go about living; show examples of why this is necessary, and explain what not to do. And that is exemplified in the Bible, the Torah, the Qur'an, et cetera.
First of all, there's part of my position that i claim to be fact.
Fact: People can achieve morality without God, even though it's more likely easier, more motivated for a person who believes in God to be moral. (Nacho_novo, i'm talkin about the Judeo/christian God now).
The proposition "God exists" or not, doesn't change the fact that a person who believes in HIM, is more likely to be moral than one who doesn't, i'm not saying people who doesn't are not moral, but MORE LIKELY people who believe in him are just moral.
If you swap the question around, then the answer is "Morality is necessary for God".
First of all, there's part of my position that i claim to be fact.
Fact: People can achieve morality without God, even though it's more likely easier, more motivated for a person who believes in God to be moral. (Nacho_novo, i'm talkin about the Judeo/christian God now).
The proposition "God exists" or not, doesn't change the fact that a person who believes in HIM, is more likely to be moral than one who doesn't, i'm not saying people who doesn't are not moral, but MORE LIKELY people who believe in him are just moral.
If you swap the question around, then the answer is "Morality is necessary for God".
Examples that you see everyday: a christian that doesn't drink is less likely to drive drunk, which is moral, because that way you're avoiding killing innocent people.
A christian wife/gf : less likely to cheat. Well i don't think i need to say that faithfulness is moral.
Etc.
Examples that you see everyday: a christian that doesn't drink is less likely to drive drunk, which is moral, because that way you're avoiding killing innocent people.
A christian wife/gf : less likely to cheat. Well i don't think i need to say that faithfulness is moral.
I think philosophers are necessary for morality. They invent ways to go about living; show examples of why this is necessary, and explain what not to do. And that is exemplified in the Bible, the Torah, the Qur'an, et cetera.
Well i'm a christian, so everytime i said "christian" that includes the torah and the bible.
But about Quran, have you read it ??? Do you have an idea about the position of the Quran regarding women ?? Regarding freedom of speech ? Regarding official penalities and punishments that should be executed on sinners ??
Sorry to go off the main point here, but i think there's a mistakable generalizing happened here, Quran is way different than the bible/Torah.
And PLEASE don't start saying that i'm saying so because i'm a christian.
Yes i'm STRICT, CONSERVATIVE, CALL ME FUNDAMENTAL christian, but i don't just go bash other beliefs.
Take buddhism, i'd DEFINITELY AGREE buddhism is like, perfect morals. But Quran ?? give it a read ?????
[QUOTE u='Laughing_Eyes' d='2009-03-04 13:09:03']
I think philosophers are necessary for morality. They invent ways to go about living; show examples of why this is necessary, and explain what not to do. And that is exemplified in the Bible, the Torah, the Qur'an, et cetera.[/QUOTE]
Well i'm a christian, so everytime i said "christian" that includes the torah and the bible.
But about Quran, have you read it ??? Do you have an idea about the position of the Quran regarding women ?? Regarding freedom of speech ? Regarding official penalities and punishments that should be executed on sinners ??
Sorry to go off the main point here, but i think there's a mistakable generalizing happened here, Quran is way different than the bible/Torah.
And PLEASE don't start saying that i'm saying so because i'm a christian.
Yes i'm STRICT, CONSERVATIVE, CALL ME FUNDAMENTAL christian, but i don't just go bash other beliefs.
Take buddhism, i'd DEFINITELY AGREE buddhism is like, perfect morals. But Quran ?? give it a read ?????
Huh. I just read your posts... And I don't believe you ever explained why you believe the Qur'an is different, or why Christianity causes wives to be more faithful. Just because it's there, eh? Right. Could you elaborate for the sake of debate? Because I don't really wish to engage in an argument with you if you don't know what you're arguing about.
Why have you now included organized religious practices in the discussion? I only mentioned the moral guides of a few selected religions, and you now have proceeded to call out each of the guides I've mentioned in your own 'perfect' opinion, I daresay, without fact behind them.
Huh. I just read your posts... And I don't believe you ever explained why you believe the Qur'an is different, or why Christianity causes wives to be more faithful. Just because it's there, eh? Right. Could you elaborate for the sake of debate? Because I don't really wish to engage in an argument with you if you don't know what you're arguing about.
Why have you now included organized religious practices in the discussion? I only mentioned the moral guides of a few selected religions, and you now have proceeded to call out each of the guides I've mentioned in your own 'perfect' opinion, I daresay, without fact behind them.
SocialismCross, you're distorting your argument and making morality some sort of subjective set of values. To say that the Qur'an doesn't have the "perfect morals" of Buddhism is taking up another argument completely. There is no mistake in generalizing religious morality (i.e. a set of moral values established in the name of religion and a god) as it is opposed to morality without a god. Although, as you say correctly, these systems may be different depending on the religion, they are all the product of a belief in a religion, and with this they can be grouped together.
I think the best response to the view of god-necessary morality is that there are certain objective, universal truths to morality created through man's capacity for reason. In your statement that "People can achieve morality without God," you've already agreed with the idea. What you add to this is that people are more likely to be moral with a belief in God. I say sure, but you've already taken a stand on the debate.
Just to clear something up, the question is not if a belief in god is necessary for morality, but rather it is if the existence of god is necessary for morality.
In all honesty, these debates tend to get out of hand pretty quickly, and I rarely enjoy them when they get to the point of complicating other arguments into the original, etc. Though I hope both sides will understand their respective views better, along with conflicting perspectives. That would be sweet.
SocialismCross, you're distorting your argument and making morality some sort of subjective set of values. To say that the Qur'an doesn't have the "perfect morals" of Buddhism is taking up another argument completely. There is no mistake in generalizing religious morality (i.e. a set of moral values established in the name of religion and a god) as it is opposed to morality without a god. Although, as you say correctly, these systems may be different depending on the religion, they are all the product of a belief in a religion, and with this they can be grouped together.
I think the best response to the view of god-necessary morality is that there are certain objective, universal truths to morality created through man's capacity for reason. In your statement that "People can achieve morality without God," you've already agreed with the idea. What you add to this is that people are more likely to be moral with a belief in God. I say sure, but you've already taken a stand on the debate.
Just to clear something up, the question is not if a belief in god is necessary for morality, but rather it is if the existence of god is necessary for morality.
In all honesty, these debates tend to get out of hand pretty quickly, and I rarely enjoy them when they get to the point of complicating other arguments into the original, etc. Though I hope both sides will understand their respective views better, along with conflicting perspectives. That would be sweet.
I'm not here to say christianity is what makes people faithful as wife/husband, i'm saying it happens that christians are more faithful regarding marriage, both are quite different things.
About the quran, just read it, then come and talk to me. Quran is not morals at all.
If you're too lazy to read, then ask me, and not on here because i'm never on here anymore.
Buddhism got morals, islam doesn't, because the morals in islam compared to the vices, evil commandments in islam, makes morals look like a number divided by infinity, which gives zero.
I'm not here to say christianity is what makes people faithful as wife/husband, i'm saying it happens that christians are more faithful regarding marriage, both are quite different things.
About the quran, just read it, then come and talk to me. Quran is not morals at all.
If you're too lazy to read, then ask me, and not on here because i'm never on here anymore.
Buddhism got morals, islam doesn't, because the morals in islam compared to the vices, evil commandments in islam, makes morals look like a number divided by infinity, which gives zero.
I've mentioned religions, because someone did.
And i'm one of the people that get pissed off with ignorance, read quran, study islam, know the commandments, the muslim laws known in arabic as "Sharia", then come and talk to me.
And again i'm not on this group, i've just added myself to comment on this Blog.
I've mentioned religions, because someone did.
And i'm one of the people that get pissed off with ignorance, read quran, study islam, know the commandments, the muslim laws known in arabic as "Sharia", then come and talk to me.
And again i'm not on this group, i've just added myself to comment on this Blog.
Don't talk about ignorance when you call the laws of Islam "evil." The Qur'an contains no morality only if you read it in the most superficial, literal way possible.
Don't talk about ignorance when you call the laws of Islam "evil." The Qur'an contains no morality only if you read it in the most superficial, literal way possible.
Not necessarily God, But some kind of authority does wonders for a society. If there were no rules tomorrow, what's stopping you from going to your local guitar centre and taking all the gear you want?
when there is no figure of authority in a society, it will collapse. Regardless of how many morally fit people there are, because there will always be at least one person that will corrupt. People need someone to scare them good, keep them in line, someone to make sure rules are obeyed.
in the words of Red Forman: "If t wasn't for rules, we would be in trees flinging crap at each other".
Not necessarily God, But some kind of authority does wonders for a society. If there were no rules tomorrow, what's stopping you from going to your local guitar centre and taking all the gear you want?
when there is no figure of authority in a society, it will collapse. Regardless of how many morally fit people there are, because there will always be at least one person that will corrupt. People need someone to scare them good, keep them in line, someone to make sure rules are obeyed.
in the words of Red Forman: "If t wasn't for rules, we would be in trees flinging crap at each other".
God, if definded as a bearded old guy sitting in the aether spying down on us and writing a list whom how he's goin' to punish, than the anwser would be yes.
But actually Jesus himself defined god as "love" (you have got to let me in...)
As far as I am concerned, moralities' root is actually the need for social integration. It was the reason for the "invention" of society and by that the "rules"/morality
It was the need for human warmth, love and community Morality has also allways been changing in different periods of time and areas, because people have changed and so the "rules" of society (morality) has had to change.
God, if definded as a bearded old guy sitting in the aether spying down on us and writing a list whom how he's goin' to punish, than the anwser would be yes.
But actually Jesus himself defined god as "love" (you have got to let me in...)
As far as I am concerned, moralities' root is actually the need for social integration. It was the reason for the "invention" of society and by that the "rules"/morality
It was the need for human warmth, love and community Morality has also allways been changing in different periods of time and areas, because people have changed and so the "rules" of society (morality) has had to change.
I think religion is simply one's outlook on life. So in this sense, an atheist is just as religious as a Christian. Humans have a tendency to believe in some kind of force governing life, on some level (conscious, unconscious, whatever). For example, a person brought up by parents who were neglectful and unreliable might see the world as an untrustworthy place where everybody is out to get them (a malevolent force governs the world). Humans also have a tendency to see such a force as an entity. This entity is really just the person's outlook on life. If we call this entity 'God', as most people are inclined to, then yes, morality is impossible without 'God'. Nothing is possible without 'God'.
I think religion is simply one's outlook on life. So in this sense, an atheist is just as religious as a Christian. Humans have a tendency to believe in some kind of force governing life, on some level (conscious, unconscious, whatever). For example, a person brought up by parents who were neglectful and unreliable might see the world as an untrustworthy place where everybody is out to get them (a malevolent force governs the world). Humans also have a tendency to see such a force as an entity. This entity is really just the person's outlook on life. If we call this entity 'God', as most people are inclined to, then yes, morality is impossible without 'God'. Nothing is possible without 'God'.
MHDrunk wrote on Sep 17th, 2009 at 4:25am : I think religion is simply one's outlook on life. So in this sense, an atheist is just as religious as a Christian. Humans have a tendency to believe in some kind of force governing life, on some level (conscious, unconscious, whatever). For example, a person brought up by parents who were neglectful and unreliable might see the world as an untrustworthy place where everybody is out to get them (a malevolent force governs the world). Humans also have a tendency to see such a force as an entity. This entity is really just the person's outlook on life. If we call this entity 'God', as most people are inclined to, then yes, morality is impossible without 'God'. Nothing is possible without 'God'.
How do you know? Have you personally seen God? And don't say yes, because everyone knows you can't see God, only see the effects of what he's doing, and you can proscribe that to God, or nature, or any number of things.
As for me, I agree exactly with desadaphas. If no one knew about God but there were social guidelines (including laws and consequences for breaking those laws [and I'm not talking about not going to heaven as a consequence or anything like that]), I'm sure people would be moral enough to not kill someone (unless in certain circumstances). As people become familiar with laws and social guidelines and the reasons behind them, they start to accept and embrace them, leading to morality.
However, morality itself is a very gray area because it is really up to the individual to decide what moral guidelines they wish to follow in life. This of course is heavily influenced by religion and societal values. However, looking at Christianity and, both historically and presently, largely Christian nations we can see that:
a) the ten commandments are basically the foundation of society, at least how it was back then, or
b) society's values are founded on the ten commandments.
Obviously a) is from an atheist/agnostic perspective and b) is from a Christian perspective. In either case, it comes down to what you believe in. If you're a Christian then yes, God is necessary for morality as its purpose is to earn your way into heaven; if you're an atheist, then no.
MHDrunk wrote on Sep 17th, 2009 at 4:25am : I think religion is simply one's outlook on life. So in this sense, an atheist is just as religious as a Christian. Humans have a tendency to believe in some kind of force governing life, on some level (conscious, unconscious, whatever). For example, a person brought up by parents who were neglectful and unreliable might see the world as an untrustworthy place where everybody is out to get them (a malevolent force governs the world). Humans also have a tendency to see such a force as an entity. This entity is really just the person's outlook on life. If we call this entity 'God', as most people are inclined to, then yes, morality is impossible without 'God'. Nothing is possible without 'God'.
How do you know? Have you personally seen God? And don't say yes, because everyone knows you can't see God, only see the effects of what he's doing, and you can proscribe that to God, or nature, or any number of things.
As for me, I agree exactly with desadaphas. If no one knew about God but there were social guidelines (including laws and consequences for breaking those laws [and I'm not talking about not going to heaven as a consequence or anything like that]), I'm sure people would be moral enough to not kill someone (unless in certain circumstances). As people become familiar with laws and social guidelines and the reasons behind them, they start to accept and embrace them, leading to morality.
However, morality itself is a very gray area because it is really up to the individual to decide what moral guidelines they wish to follow in life. This of course is heavily influenced by religion and societal values. However, looking at Christianity and, both historically and presently, largely Christian nations we can see that:
a) the ten commandments are basically the foundation of society, at least how it was back then, or
b) society's values are founded on the ten commandments.
Obviously a) is from an atheist/agnostic perspective and b) is from a Christian perspective. In either case, it comes down to what you believe in. If you're a Christian then yes, God is necessary for morality as its purpose is to earn your way into heaven; if you're an atheist, then no.
And as to the whole Islam is immoral and contains no moral guidelines whatsoever thing: morality is not up to others to decide. If it was, would that make stealing moral if everyone did it? Morality is a personal thing, you live by your own rules no matter which way you look at it. Even if you're a Christian you're actually not living by God's rules (well you are, but), you're actually living by your own rules. And you choose to adopt God's rules as your own rules. But the fact remains that it is your own free choice to decide what morality is.
And in any case, SocialismCross, Sharia contains laws against adultery, murder, and theft, just to name a few, so you're biased argument is completely invalid.
And as to the whole Islam is immoral and contains no moral guidelines whatsoever thing: morality is not up to others to decide. If it was, would that make stealing moral if everyone did it? Morality is a personal thing, you live by your own rules no matter which way you look at it. Even if you're a Christian you're actually not living by God's rules (well you are, but), you're actually living by your own rules. And you choose to adopt God's rules as your own rules. But the fact remains that it is your own free choice to decide what morality is.
And in any case, SocialismCross, Sharia contains laws against adultery, murder, and theft, just to name a few, so you're biased argument is completely invalid.
I think what MHDrunk is trying to say is that, everyone, athiest/christian/etc alike, all have a chief principle that they adhere by. Everyone has a "god" in the sense that, everyone has a view on what they believe is to be "moral or virtuous". God is the personification of these beliefs/morals/etc.
I think what MHDrunk is trying to say is that, everyone, athiest/christian/etc alike, all have a chief principle that they adhere by. Everyone has a "god" in the sense that, everyone has a view on what they believe is to be "moral or virtuous". God is the personification of these beliefs/morals/etc.
OK, I see now, but I don't really see the significance of calling that a God... isn't that what the word "morals" is already for? God may be a personification that represents our morals and beliefs, but I can tell you right now that most atheists don't believe in any sort of personification, and that's why I think your argument is a bit besides the point. I think the word you were looking for in the sentence "I think religion is simply one's outlook on life" instead of religion is philosophy. Or just morals.
OK, I see now, but I don't really see the significance of calling that a God... isn't that what the word "morals" is already for? God may be a personification that represents our morals and beliefs, but I can tell you right now that most atheists don't believe in any sort of personification, and that's why I think your argument is a bit besides the point. I think the word you were looking for in the sentence "I think religion is simply one's outlook on life" instead of religion is philosophy. Or just morals.
MHDrunk wrote on Oct 6th, 2009 at 3:44pm : First, try and divorce the term 'God' from your understanding of religion.
I hope everyone realizes that by doing this he's changing one of the initial premises of the debate and redefining a significant term instead of clarifying its definition for argument's sake. Yes, you can argue that you define "religion" differently, but your new definition is like saying, "First, try and divorce the term 'yellow' from banana. Now were talking about my concept of banana, so..."
asfastasdark wrote on Sep 17th, 2009 at 10:23pm :
Morality is a personal thing, you live by your own rules no matter which way you look at it. Even if you're a Christian you're actually not living by God's rules (well you are, but), you're actually living by your own rules. And you choose to adopt God's rules as your own rules. But the fact remains that it is your own free choice to decide what morality is.
asfastasdark, I understand what you're arguing, and its basically a version of Relativism. There is no objective morality. A concept of right and wrong is entirely contingent on each person's subjective experience of the world. With this viewpoint, it becomes very difficult to argue anything because every argument comes down to: "Well, it depends on the person." If it's everyone's "own free choice to decide what morality is," couldn't everyone be perfectly moral killing people, stealing, etc, because they choose to believe it is moral to use force in looking after one's own interests? I understand the logic, but it just always ends up sounding like a cop-out, and I hope you realize the implications of what you're saying.
Ha, I'm just being a critic, but if you guys think these are valid critiques, see if they help you to clarify your arguments.
[QUOTE u='MHDrunk' d='2009-10-06 15:44:29']First, try and divorce the term 'God' from your understanding of religion.[/QUOTE]
I hope everyone realizes that by doing this he's changing one of the initial premises of the debate and redefining a significant term instead of clarifying its definition for argument's sake. Yes, you can argue that you define "religion" differently, but your new definition is like saying, "First, try and divorce the term 'yellow' from banana. Now were talking about my concept of banana, so..."
[QUOTE u='asfastasdark' d='2009-09-17 22:23:44']
Morality is a personal thing, you live by your own rules no matter which way you look at it. Even if you're a Christian you're actually not living by God's rules (well you are, but), you're actually living by your own rules. And you choose to adopt God's rules as your own rules. But the fact remains that it is your own free choice to decide what morality is.[/QUOTE]
asfastasdark, I understand what you're arguing, and its basically a version of Relativism. There is no objective morality. A concept of right and wrong is entirely contingent on each person's subjective experience of the world. With this viewpoint, it becomes very difficult to argue anything because every argument comes down to: "Well, it depends on the person." If it's everyone's "own free choice to decide what morality is," couldn't everyone be perfectly moral killing people, stealing, etc, because they choose to believe it is moral to use force in looking after one's own interests? I understand the logic, but it just always ends up sounding like a cop-out, and I hope you realize the implications of what you're saying.
Ha, I'm just being a critic, but if you guys think these are valid critiques, see if they help you to clarify your arguments.
gonzaw wrote on Oct 7th, 2009 at 12:39pm : Depends if morality is defined by God or not, if he exists...
But would an objective morality necessarily require a deity, or a highest good, or a super-sensible moral lawgiver? We could assume a God that is imperfect, not benevolent or not tending towards morality or goodness, in which case he wouldn't define a morality, as you say. Following this, however, the question then remains, can this morality exist independent of God (namely, through human reason)? And we're right back where we've started. For morality to exist through a God, he would have to be omniscient and tending towards an end which is goodness perfected (i.e. the kingdom of God). Then all we have to do is accord ourselves with that end in order to be moral. At least that's what Kant would say...
gonzaw wrote on Oct 7th, 2009 at 12:39pm : Depends if morality is defined by God or not, if he exists...
But would an objective morality necessarily require a deity, or a highest good, or a super-sensible moral lawgiver? We could assume a God that is imperfect, not benevolent or not tending towards morality or goodness, in which case he wouldn't define a morality, as you say. Following this, however, the question then remains, can this morality exist independent of God (namely, through human reason)? And we're right back where we've started. For morality to exist through a God, he would have to be omniscient and tending towards an end which is goodness perfected (i.e. the kingdom of God). Then all we have to do is accord ourselves with that end in order to be moral. At least that's what Kant would say...
If an objective reality can exist why can't an objective morality?
Arguably, and absolute reality exists in a way or another, whatever that way is, since the definition of existance we created was created or conceived by ourselfs (stating the obvious), then that definition of existance and reality is justified in said system.
Ehmm, that may not make much sense, but even though reality exists, objective morality may or may not
If an objective reality can exist why can't an objective morality?
Arguably, and absolute reality exists in a way or another, whatever that way is, since the definition of existance we created was created or conceived by ourselfs (stating the obvious), then that definition of existance and reality is justified in said system.
Ehmm, that may not make much sense, but even though reality exists, objective morality may or may not
| My Profile
Philosopher's Guild group
