Support NeoGAF

[Rentahamster]

What is “society”? Who gets to decide what values are worthy of maximizing in a society, and why? I think I already see where there is going though - argumentum ad populum.

Well, the writers of the United States Constitution made an effort, and most of us are happy with it.

 

[Taxexemption]

You need a moral standard outside of yourself for it to be objective. Without belief that someone with an objective moral framework judges you people will create their own moral framework that justifies any actions they want to take.


When left to their own devices on the subject of morals, people will create a moral standard that justifies whatever they want to do. You can find pedos and people into bestiality that argue that what they do is moral.



Without Christ and the system of morality he gave us there is only arbitrary moral preferences, they are completely meaningless.

 

[Rentahamster]

When left to their own devices on the subject of morals, people will create a moral standard that justifies whatever they want to do. You can find pedos and people into bestiality that argue that what they do is moral.

Yet we have a system of laws that deals with this.

 

[lastmessiah]

Yet we have a system of laws that deals with this.

What makes that system of laws morally right?

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

I can't prove you wrong, but it's probably much easier to impose a set of morals to people if these morals are presented as something coming from a higher, unseen authority. Because the minute someone asks "why do we do this?", it's easier to dismiss the question with "because God says so". After all, morals have no basis but the value a group of people is willing to give them.

Science can't provide morals. Left unchecked and unbridled, science leads to Nazi experiments on humans, because there's no scientific proof of an intrinsic value of human life any more than there's scientific proof of God.

Also, the fact that there's less violent crime isn't proof that we have a better moral code in today's mostly atheistic/agnostic western societies. Our societies are so complex that there's a million ways to cheat your fellow humans without resorting to violence. We're also much less free than in the past, because laws regulate virtually everything and retribution is much surer than it was in the past. Just a few decades ago, a shared moral code was expected to make society function, and crime was usually very extreme and seen as a severe breach of the moral code. Today, not so much.

Today's relativism also makes it basically impossible to have a shared moral code. We're seeing it every single day in the million examples from social media. Morals are dictated by trends that change every decade or so. Cultural products from just 20 years ago are deemed unacceptable today. Compare that to a religious background that provided a system of morals that lasted for centuries. Of course many people didn't care for God's wrath even back then, and of course you had the loudest virtue signallers do the most despicable things. But the societies based on religion were arguably more stable.

We probably don't need God, but it's quite clear that we need something to replace God, and we haven't found it yet. Unfortunately, it's quite impossible today for a single man or a small group of people to be so loud and charismatic as to provide morals that are good and acceptable for the masses. This is why we have so much tribalism and tension in societies that seemed very stable not that long ago, even in the face of crime that looked magnitudes worse than what we see today.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

This isn't necessarily about universal absolutes, either, or the need for any. This is about whether a god a necessary ingredient in any of this.

The societies that enforced moral absolutes (hint: all of them) invoked a higher divine authority, the form which varied from culture to culture. Perhaps we could find examples of societies that didn't. I don't know of any, do you?

The metrics depend on whom you ask.

Then the metrics aren't absolute and have no validity. At best, you could appeal to our shared value of "logic" or "reason" or "agreeability" but I would wager that the positive value placed on those things also came from the religious roots of the society.

In modern western society, as several posters here also subscribe to, the metrics are freedom and happiness. The contributions of religious writers are also greatly appreciated as well. I'm not discounting their work. Religious philosophy is just as much a foundation of our modern society as any. I'm more concerned, like Thomas Jefferson was, in the necessity of the supernatural aspects of it.

Then define your terms because you're agreeing with me in this post. Religion and philosophy are the foundation of all the
"positive moral frameworks" I see around me. Even an atheist's rejection of god requires the existence of god or gods to come to that conclusion, otherwise there would be nothing to reject and no branch of thought to pursue.

Our current "positive moral frameworks" all come from religious roots, the influence which you do not discount. We have examples of societies where god or many gods were required, but we are still waiting for an example that supports your thesis. I mean, I'm just waiting for the part where we start arguing about what "required" means, because that's where this seems to be headed.

We can ponder a hypothetical scenario where religion wasn't the basis for a positive moral framework just like we can ponder a hypothetical scenario where monism overwhelmed dualism 1000 years ago (oops, there I go again referencing religious foundations responsible for our modern positive moral framework ). I'm not sure how I'm going to change your mind if you insist on playing in the realm of hypotheticals.

Your argument has yet to go beyond "but dude.... what if?!?"

Also, I'd like to pick apart your non-sequitur about children learning morals as they grow up before they have a conscious knowledge of a god....

Who is teaching them these morals, and from where are they getting these morals? Children do not default to moral behavior. Quite the opposite: they default to instinctual behavior and must be conditioned for years and years before they're able to handle themselves politely.

That's not really my aim either.

At this point I'm not sure what your aim is.

Nope, which is why I very clearly defined what my premise is.

Your premise says "godless societies" without giving any concrete examples, and then you keep returning to that baseless assertion without clarifying. No, you did not clearly define what your premise is.

We've jumped from "existence of god is not needed for moral positive framework" to "the supernatural aspects aren't required" and we're not even off the first page.

Pick a premise and stick with it. Children learning morals on their own is perhaps an argument as to why individuals do not need a god to come to moral conclusions (still debatable), but that is not evidence for or against what a full-blown society does or does not require. You said that culture -- not religion -- is the main driver, but history is littered with instances where religion overwrote the previous culture and imposed a new set of behaviors on the society. Culture and religion are not necessarily distinct from one another in all instances, as an aside, but I'm not gonna throw a False Dichotomy card on the field.

 

[Lanrutcon]

But if people don't need God to be good, then why do they need laws to be good? Same thing, really. Take away the stick and people will just do whatever. It's just a matter if the stick is jail or hell.

 

[synchronicity]

The biggest thing of Christianity is to understand and admit we are pieces of shit. There wouldn't be no need for a savior if we weren't. So probably if you'd go and say that guy that he probably is a piece of shit then, he'd respond with "yes" and continue living his life with zero new revelation about him shown to him.

My biggest takeaway is that he is acting out of fear. Fear drives much of human behavior for sure, but it's not admirable in my view. If living in fear is the basis for some great reward, that is quite the deity.

 

[Rentahamster]

What makes that system of laws morally right?

The society and its values and the agreed cooperation of the people within. It's not perfect nor divine, but it's the best we came up with.

 

[lastmessiah]

The society and its values and the agreed cooperation of the people within. It's not perfect nor divine, but it's the best we came up with.

But that isn't morality, that is just policy. You are basically saying "if most people say so, then it is so" which is a fallacious argument.

 

[RPS37]

Do unto other because what goes around comes around.
It’s all energy, man. Send positive out, get positive back.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Ironically, the argument used in the OP is the same I've seen used when trying to argue for a young or a flat earth or the non-existence of the moon.

"Prove that the moon exists. Doesn't science admit that we have to observe something for it to be true? So have you observed that the moon has always existed according to these fancy Laws of Gravity and discoveries about celestial bodies and stuff like that?"

Scientists shrug and say, "well, you're right, I can't prove to you that the moon really exists, but here are 14 million piece of evidence that seem to support the idea. Also, it's getting dark soon, so if you'd like to join me outside I can provide just one more piece of proof, if you're willing".

In the same way, I think it's time for me to shrug and say "well, you're right. I can't prove that a positive moral framework requires a god or many gods to exist, but here's a list of all human societies that utilized divine authority as the basis for their earthly rule."

 

[Airola]

My biggest takeaway is that he is acting out of fear. Fear drives much of human behavior for sure, but it's not admirable in my view. If living in fear is the basis for some great reward, that is quite the deity.

If it is, it is.
And it doesn't care how you feel about it. It is the way it is, and it will not change based on what we would wish it to be. We can stomp our feet against the thought of its existence but in the end we all end up dead, and whatever it was still is. Memento mori. Here's hoping all goes well after we've done the last thing we can do and taken our last breath. We're both on the same boat with the same fate. All we can do in the end is hope for the best.

 

[#Phonepunk#]

Ancient Greek had gods. They had temples. They had state holidays after the gods.

Japan is Zen Buddhist some may argue is nontheistic but is still undoubtedly a religion where morality is fundamental. Imo Ideals of oneness and the inter connected communal nature of reality are inherent in Buddhist thought and Japanese work/social culture.

I don’t think it’s impossible to do an atheist society with morality but it hasn’t been done. Like communism it is something that “could work in theory.“ So far all the societies on Earth have some kind of religious foundation. The US constitution famously claims our rights are given by the Creator.

Humanists during the Renaissance claimed as you that rationality and secular enlightenment would bring a golden age of society. Yet did it eliminate wars? Imperialism? Slavery? The original humanist book “Utopia” has an imagined ideal society. In it, things work because slaves mine gold all day. Wow they really broke new ground.

Even today can we honestly say money minded corporate policy has eliminated forced labor? Or starvation? Or genocide? These aren’t things people were fine with in the past but not now. These are still happening. We have an active genocide that entire industries are ignoring so they can line their pockets. That’s your secular morality for you.

 

[synchronicity]

If it is, it is.
And it doesn't care how you feel about it. It is the way it is, and it will not change based on what we would wish it to be. We can stomp our feet against the thought of its existence but in the end we all end up dead, and whatever it was still is. Memento mori. Here's hoping all goes well after we've done the last thing we can do and taken our last breath. We're both on the same boat with the same fate. All we can do in the end is hope for the best.

I know of no deity, so I'm in no position to make a statement about any hypothetical being. I don't wish for things to be any particular way.

 

[Sign]

You said it used to be easier to maintain a moral system, but not anymore. If that's the case, why is prosperity rising in this more immoral world we inhabit?


This thread isn't about religious frameworks. That's too general. It is specifically about god-given moral absolutes.

The title of this thread is "The existence of God, a god, or many gods, is not required in order for society to have a positive moral framework..."

You are already talking about religious frameworks. Religion is about your behavior and how it relates to god.

I think it is very telling for your argument that you are having to play word games on this stuff.

Also you've yet to provide an example of a country doing what you propose that was not inspired by religion.

Are you able to demonstrate that?

Was in the edit. Western Civilization.

I will also say that:

A sense of right and wrong is something that most humans have even as toddlers, before any of them can even be capable of understanding what God is.

Is begging the question.

 

[Rentahamster]

Without Christ and the system of morality he gave us there is only arbitrary moral preferences, they are completely meaningless.

Is the system described by God under Exodus 21 a beacon of morality that you should live by?

Bible Gateway passage: Exodus 21 - King James Version

Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master...

www.biblegateway.com

 

[Rentahamster]

But that isn't morality, that is just policy. You are basically saying "if most people say so, then it is so" which is a fallacious argument.

That is the policy that is derived from the morality that we determine via reason. This is why we live in a liberal secular democracy, not a theocracy.

 

[Rentahamster]

Science can't provide morals. Left unchecked and unbridled, science leads to Nazi experiments on humans, because there's no scientific proof of an intrinsic value of human life any more than there's scientific proof of God.

If one needs "scientific" proof to determine that there is intrinsic value for human life, I'd say that borders on sociopathy.

 

[TrainedRage]

Its pretty easy to claim this when you live in a society built around the belief in God.

But imagine if there was no God or church etc since the beginning of time? What do you imagine the world we would live in looks like?

I have to think a higher power is responsible for many of the moral standards we still hold today. Even if its a fear of repercussion, im fine with it if it keeps Bill from coming to my house and shooting me for my VR 'cuz no hell bro!

 

[lastmessiah]

If one needs "scientific" proof to determine that there is intrinsic value for human life, I'd say that borders on sociopathy.

You aren’t making arguments anymore though, you are just passing judgment, which ironically is what religious morality is known for.

 

[-Arcadia-]

It's not required, but it certainly helps.

Most people need something to believe in, and that vacuum will be filled no matter what. That can be a religion that tells you to love everyone, do your best every day, and treat others as you would yourself, or it can be an out-of-control violent/hateful ideology like we see with modern leftism.

 

[Rentahamster]

The societies that enforced moral absolutes (hint: all of them) invoked a higher divine authority, the form which varied from culture to culture. Perhaps we could find examples of societies that didn't. I don't know of any, do you?

Yes, many Western societies did invoke a divine authority that made them do great things, but also terrible things with similar justification. Was that divine authority moral?

Besides, the fact that they used religion as a base does not mean that it required a god to derive their code of laws. I already gave you examples of Japan and Ancient Greece but you disagree with those to an extent. There are no authoritarian god or gods in those cultures that decree rules of morality. Were the ethics that we base a lot of modern Western philosophy on commanded by Zeus? Was the concept of democracy? No, it was reasoned by philosophers.

Then the metrics aren't absolute and have no validity.

Happiness, life expectancy, health, wealth, deaths, illness, poverty, access to clean drinking water, access to health care, etc - these are all objective, measurable data points we can use to determine if our moral codes are working as intended. If the intention, of course, is to maximize those numbers.

Then define your terms because you're agreeing with me in this post. Religion and philosophy are the foundation of all the
"positive moral frameworks" I see around me. Even an atheist's rejection of god requires the existence of god or gods to come to that conclusion, otherwise there would be nothing to reject and no branch of thought to pursue.

No you're not, because as far as I can tell, your framework still requires the existence of a god who commands moral laws.

Also, I'd like to pick apart your non-sequitur about children learning morals as they grow up before they have a conscious knowledge of a god....

Do Kids Have a Fundamental Sense of Fairness?

Experiments show that this quality often emerges by the age of 12 months

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Study Shows Young Children Know Right from Wrong

Kids as young as three know what it means to do the right thing.

www.mentalfloss.com

At this point I'm not sure what your aim is.

The title of the thread: You don't need to have a god in order to construct a system of morality.

Your premise says "godless societies" without giving any concrete examples, and then you keep returning to that baseless assertion without clarifying. No, you did not clearly define what your premise is.

We've jumped from "existence of god is not needed for moral positive framework" to "the supernatural aspects aren't required" and we're not even off the first page.

Yes I did. The god part of the equation is the supernatural part. Most anyone here can come to the conclusion that "Thou shalt not kill" (under most circumstances) without being told so by a divine, supernatural being.

 

[Tesseract]

if god didn't exist it would be necessary to create him

probably

 

[Rentahamster]

You aren’t making arguments anymore though, you are just passing judgment, which ironically is what religious morality is known for.

I'm elaborating on a definition.

Sociopathy

Sociopathy refers to a pattern of antisocial behaviors and attitudes, including manipulation, deceit, aggression, and a lack of empathy for others. Sociopathy is a non-diagnostic term, and it is not synonymous with "psychopathy," though the overlap leads to frequent confusion. Sociopaths may or...

www.psychologytoday.com

The defining characteristic of the sociopath is a profound lack of conscience—a flaw in the moral compass that typically steers people away from breaking common rules and toward treating others decently.

"I need scientific proof before I am able to value human life".

Does that sound like the philosophy of a conscientious person to you?

 

[TrainedRage]

Yes, many Western societies did invoke a divine authority that made them do great things, but also terrible things with similar justification. Was that divine authority moral?

Besides, the fact that they used religion as a base does not mean that it required a god to derive their code of laws. I already gave you examples of Japan and Ancient Greece but you disagree with those to an extent. There are no authoritarian god or gods in those cultures that decree rules of morality. Were the ethics that we base a lot of modern Western philosophy on commanded by Zeus? Was the concept of democracy? No, it was reasoned by philosophers.


Happiness, life expectancy, health, wealth, deaths, illness, poverty, access to clean drinking water, access to health care, etc - these are all objective, measurable data points we can use to determine if our moral codes are working as intended. If the intention, of course, is to maximize those numbers.


No you're not, because as far as I can tell, your framework still requires the existence of a god who commands moral laws.

Do Kids Have a Fundamental Sense of Fairness?

Experiments show that this quality often emerges by the age of 12 months

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Study Shows Young Children Know Right from Wrong

Kids as young as three know what it means to do the right thing.

www.mentalfloss.com

The title of the thread: You don't need to have a god in order to construct a system of morality.

Yes I did. The god part of the equation is the supernatural part. Most anyone here can come to the conclusion that "Thou shalt not kill" (under most circumstances) without being told so by a divine, supernatural being.

How do you know this? Religion has shaped our morals from the beginning of time. People worshiped the sun as a god. If people only believed in self serving individualism we would be fucked. Its just too damn hard to even speculate. There are no people living in a vacuum that have not been influenced in some way by religion/god.

 

[Rentahamster]

Ironically, the argument used in the OP is the same I've seen used when trying to argue for a young or a flat earth or the non-existence of the moon.

"Prove that the moon exists. Doesn't science admit that we have to observe something for it to be true? So have you observed that the moon has always existed according to these fancy Laws of Gravity and discoveries about celestial bodies and stuff like that?"

Scientists shrug and say, "well, you're right, I can't prove to you that the moon really exists, but here are 14 million piece of evidence that seem to support the idea. Also, it's getting dark soon, so if you'd like to join me outside I can provide just one more piece of proof, if you're willing".

In the same way, I think it's time for me to shrug and say "well, you're right. I can't prove that a positive moral framework requires a god or many gods to exist, but here's a list of all human societies that utilized divine authority as the basis for their earthly rule."

False equivalency. You can observe the moon, just as you can observe laws that were created with divine inspiration and laws created without divine inspiration from a supernatural being such as a god that mandates these rules specifically to his adherents.

You can also observe, via the monday morning quarterbacking, how laws from god can also create great suffering and might actually be considered immoral by today's society and those same religions of that god.

 

[triplestation]

religion is a great base thats binds the identity of a community, even if in a more secular way

when you stray too far from a nice foundation you get:

 

[lastmessiah]

I'm elaborating on a definition.

Sociopathy

Sociopathy refers to a pattern of antisocial behaviors and attitudes, including manipulation, deceit, aggression, and a lack of empathy for others. Sociopathy is a non-diagnostic term, and it is not synonymous with "psychopathy," though the overlap leads to frequent confusion. Sociopaths may or...

www.psychologytoday.com

"I need scientific proof before I am able to value human life".

Does that sound like the philosophy of a conscientious person to you?

There is a distinction between someone carrying a value system that favors human life and actually being able to prove that human life has intrinsic value. That is what we are talking about, whether we can prove that each life is an end in itself. That is something that no one can prove about anything, which is why people resort to the ad hominem retorts you are employing here.

 

[Rentahamster]

Ancient Greek had gods. They had temples. They had state holidays after the gods.

Japan is Zen Buddhist some may argue is nontheistic but is still undoubtedly a religion where morality is fundamental. Imo Ideals of oneness and the inter connected communal nature of reality are inherent in Buddhist thought and Japanese work/social culture.

Did Socrates get his basis of ethics on stone tablets from Zeus and Apollo, or did he do it via reason?

Did the Japanese derive their laws based on what the gods of the rivers and stones and rice fields told them in a vision?

I don’t think it’s impossible to do an atheist society with morality but it hasn’t been done. Like communism it is something that “could work in theory.“ So far all the societies on Earth have some kind of religious foundation. The US constitution famously claims our rights are given by the Creator.

You don't consider modern Japan an atheist society?

Also, the Constitution of the United States of America does not claim that. The Declaration of Independence is what states that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. What kinds of rights? The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Values that we as a society prioritize, and are able to do so with or without the existence of a god. Both atheists and theists can cherish these principles for their own reasons. Don't you think so?

Humanists during the Renaissance claimed as you that rationality and secular enlightenment would bring a golden age of society. Yet did it eliminate wars? Imperialism? Slavery? The original humanist book “Utopia” has an imagined ideal society. In it, things work because slaves mine gold all day. Wow they really broke new ground.

Even today can we honestly say money minded corporate policy has eliminated forced labor? Or starvation? Or genocide? These aren’t things people were fine with in the past but not now. These are still happening. We have an active genocide that entire industries are ignoring so they can line their pockets. That’s your secular morality for you.

Why bring up Renaissance humanists? Did it eliminate wars? Imperialsim? Slavery? No? DId religion? No? So what's the point? What it did do, however, was introduce a new way of thinking about our code of laws and civil society.

 

[MetalAlien]

Who says what is right or wrong though? That was the whole point of God, to have an absolute authority that deems things "right" and "wrong". Otherwise anyone could just retort with "nuh-uh".

Now that God is dead and science is what we have, it isn't even likely that humans possess free will. No system of morality makes sense in a reality where we are just puppets of forces beyond our control. But as tax paying citizens most of us desperately need ourselves and others to pretend that morals are real.

That's exactly it... morality is like relativity. There is no exact right or wrong down here on the lowly human plane of existence. Even in societies that don't believe in god exactly will deify something in his place. God is not like us, we are just made in his image. The ideal of good is a concept used to explain behavior in fellowship with god. The idea of evil is an action in opposition of god. That's it. Everything else is clown shoes.

 

[Rentahamster]

The title of this thread is "The existence of God, a god, or many gods, is not required in order for society to have a positive moral framework..."

You are already talking about religious frameworks. Religion is about your behavior and how it relates to god.

I think it is very telling for your argument that you are having to play word games on this stuff.

Also you've yet to provide an example of a country doing what you propose that was not inspired by religion.

Moral frameworks and religious frameworks, while related, are two different things. I'm not playing word games. You either need god to command you how to live your life in order to be moral, or you don't. I've given examples of societies that have derived codes of conduct in a prosperous society that didn't rely on edits from a supernatural creator.

Was in the edit. Western Civilization.

I agree that Western Civilization is cool. I'm asking you where is the cause and effect specifically that it is Christianity in and of itself that is causing this lack of violence, despite belief in Christianity falling worldwide.

Is begging the question.

No it's not. There are studies that demonstrate this.

 

[Rentahamster]

Its pretty easy to claim this when you live in a society built around the belief in God.

I've lived in societies that aren't built around the belief in God, and it's easy to claim it there too.

But imagine if there was no God or church etc since the beginning of time? What do you imagine the world we would live in looks like?

Who knows. That's a very complicated alternate history.

I have to think a higher power is responsible for many of the moral standards we still hold today. Even if its a fear of repercussion, im fine with it if it keeps Bill from coming to my house and shooting me for my VR 'cuz no hell bro!

The police keep Bill from doing that. Also Bill's sense of decency, whether he gets that from religion or elsewhere.

 

[Chaplain]

"According to the Bible, human beings are special: every man and woman is made in the image of God and therefore has infinite value. The importance of this teaching cannot be over-emphasized, since it lies behind and energizes the values that most of us hold to be inviolable — in particular, our Western concepts of the value of each individual human life, of human rights, and of gender equality. The eminent European lawyer Dr Ernst-Wolfgang Bockenforde was underlining this fact, when he made the following observation that has received a great deal of discussion: 'The secular state lives from normative assumptions that it cannot itself guarantee." It is for this reason that atheist intellectual Jurgen Habermas calls for secular society not to cut itself off from important resources by failing to retain a sense of the power of articulation of religious language: "Philosophy has reasons to remain open to learn from religious tradition." Habermas makes it clear that the biblical idea of human beings as created in the image of God belongs to the genealogy of human rights. History confirms this view. In his detailed discussion, historian Arnold Angenendt points out, for instance, that the early church fathers condemned slavery on the basis that no one made in the image of God should be bought with money. In the Middle Ages, Burchard von Worms said that anyone who killed a Jew or heathen person had blotted out both an image of God and the hope of future salvation. In the seventeenth century, John Milton said that "all men are free born because they are in the image of God"." (Oxford professor John Lennox)

 

[Rentahamster]

There is a distinction between someone carrying a value system that favors human life and actually being able to prove that human life has intrinsic value. That is what we are talking about, whether we can prove that each life is an end in itself. That is something that no one can prove about anything, which is why people resort to the ad hominem retorts you are employing here.

That is what I am talking about too, which is why stating people need proof that humans have intrinsic value otherwise Nazis is absurd.

 

[TrainedRage]

That is what I am talking about too, which is why stating people need proof that humans have intrinsic value otherwise Nazis is absurd.

Can I have sex with your wife/girlfriend? If not why?

 

[Rentahamster]

Can I have sex with your wife/girlfriend? If not why?

Because I don't want you to. And neither would she.

 

[DeaDPo0L84]

I won't try and change your mind cause I agree.

Also on the point you made about god's word being absolute yet there are so many denominations is a point I bring up when talking with Christian friends. Most people who belong to a congregation believe they have the truth, the one way ticket to heaven. Okay fine,but...

So does the church across the street, the one up the road, that big one up on a hill, the fancy one that's on tv,they ALL believe they alone have the answer. But if theres only one truth that can guide someone's spirit to the promised land theres going to be a lot of Christian's who are really confused when they die and don't see their god upon opening their eyes.

It's all bullshit.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Yes, many Western societies did invoke a divine authority that made them do great things, but also terrible things with similar justification. Was that divine authority moral?

Your premise is whether the existence of god or many gods is required in order for society to have a positive moral framework. My answer to this question and the morality of the religion in question is irrelevant to your own OP.

It's pretty binary: was or wasn't a god or many gods involved in the formation of such-and-such society's positive moral framework? The answer will either be "yes" or it will be "no" as you go down the list. No speculation required, assuming we have historical record of that society's laws and beliefs.

Besides, the fact that they used religion as a base does not mean that it required a god to derive their code of laws.

Ah. I believe we've already covered this:

we are still waiting for an example that supports your thesis. I mean, I'm just waiting for the part where we start arguing about what "required" means, because that's where this seems to be headed.

I already gave you examples of Japan and Ancient Greece but you disagree with those to an extent. There are no authoritarian god or gods in those cultures that decree rules of morality. Were the ethics that we base a lot of modern Western philosophy on commanded by Zeus? Was the concept of democracy? No, it was reasoned by philosophers.

This is ahistorical. You're also adding fresh exceptions to your own argument that I never raised.

I didn't realize that it had to be an authoritarian god or gods. What about gods of nature and celestial gods like in many asian countries? Do those not count? Do the massive temples and gallons of spilled animal blood not count as subservience to a greek god? Apparently not. Maybe your OP was not as clear as you think.

I gotta say, I love when people separate "the philosophers" from the rest of the greeks because it makes it very obvious how little you've read on the topic. The Hellenistic philosophers certainly didn't materialize out of thin air and they had quite a foundation to build upon. We could make the argument as to whether those individuals actually believed in the gods or not, but they were born into a society shaped by religious belief in the greek pantheon.

Happiness, life expectancy, health, wealth, deaths, illness, poverty, access to clean drinking water, access to health care, etc - these are all objective, measurable data points we can use to determine if our moral codes are working as intended. If the intention, of course, is to maximize those numbers.

What's objective about any of those things?

Happiness? Completely subjective and almost impossible to measure.
Life expectancy? Compared to what, and in what circumstances?
Health? Completely subjective.
Deaths? As opposed to life expectancy? What about in wartime? What about in famine?

No you're not, because as far as I can tell, your framework still requires the existence of a god who commands moral laws.

I honestly don't know what this means, but it certainly isn't a reply to what you quoted.

Do Kids Have a Fundamental Sense of Fairness?

Experiments show that this quality often emerges by the age of 12 months

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Study Shows Young Children Know Right from Wrong

Kids as young as three know what it means to do the right thing.

www.mentalfloss.com

I still seem to be missing the part where rudimentary child morals result in a functioning, balanced society. It's your premise, not mine.

The title of the thread: You don't need to have a god in order to construct a system of morality.

Based on what evidence? So far all the systems of morality I can find are either based on divine authority or they are derived from a belief system based on divine authority.

Yes I did. The god part of the equation is the supernatural part. Most anyone here can come to the conclusion that "Thou shalt not kill" (under most circumstances) without being told so by a divine, supernatural being.

History shows that in fact, most people do not come to the conclusion "thou shalt not kill" if left to their own devices, and in many cases a society will glorify its warriors and encourage them to kill more for the enrichment of the society. And it appears that as we move further back into history / deeper into remote, "primitive" geographies, the conclusion of "thou shalt not kill" is not common at all, and the societies that hold some beliefs toward murder tend to.... wait for it... invoke divine authority to claim it is wrong.

I never asked if a particular hypothetical person could come to a moral conclusion, nor if a child could learn rudimentary fair-play rules. Your premise was that a positive moral framework did not require the existence of god or gods. I don't assert that a person needs to personally hear the rules from a divine, supernatural being. Surely the message from the divine being could be verbally passed down or something. The efficacy of the moral code would still be scrutinized with each passing generation. In some cases, the code may be sufficient enough to even take root in the culture. All this is irrelevant anyway.

Here let me have a turn with the unfalsifiable questions: the existence of a positive moral framework requires a divine intelligence to create it, guide it, and keep it safe from ruin change my mind.

False equivalency. You can observe the moon, just as you can observe laws that were created with divine inspiration and laws created without divine inspiration from a supernatural being such as a god that mandates these rules specifically to his adherents.

You can also observe, via the monday morning quarterbacking, how laws from god can also create great suffering and might actually be considered immoral by today's society and those same religions of that god.

You can observe history and find examples that refute your own premise, but it's easier to observe the act of debate from a distance and leap in face first.

How is it a false equivalency? Like the flat earthers, you ignore facts and demand that the discussion takes place in your hypothetical world, and when your own terms bite you in the furry butt, you then switch gears and deflect elsewhere. I think it's a very accurate description of your OP.

Also, please stop trying to yank my attention back to the morality of religions. You're demonstrating that you are no longer able to defend your own argument and must now flee to unrelated topics. And this is coming from the guy who asked what moral relativity / universal objectivity had to do with the premise.

 

[TrainedRage]

Because I don't want you to. And neither would she.

Why don't you want me to?
You should share her with the group so we can create more humans to hunt and gather!
There is no moral ground for you to stand on. And even if your wife doesn't want to I don't care because propagating the species is the main goal here.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

Because I don't want you to. And neither would she.

Who says they need your permission? What if he has superior genetics to yours? Aren't you robbing society of a superior future citizen?

 

[RyanReedyMusicMultimedia]

Sad but true.

It is funny because he states the obvious which is what the Bible says about all humanity. I am a sinner and am inherently an evil person. That is the very reason that Jesus Christ came. Not because we were so good that we could just do everything on our own.

 

[RyanReedyMusicMultimedia]

I don't want to derail the moon thread, so let's have that conversation here.

I sometimes hear that morality is only possible from a belief in God and religion. While that might apply to some societies in human history, it does not apply to all of them. If God were absolutely requisite for a moral society, how can the existence of successful "godless" societies be explained? Does God just download His morality into these societies without them being aware? I find that unlikely.

A sense of right and wrong is something that most humans have even as toddlers, before any of them can even be capable of understanding what God is. Therefore, even a belief in a god or gods is not necessary for the foundation of morality. God's word is static and absolute, so why are there so many denominations of the same religion with their own takes on what is and isn't moral? Why is it that over time, our sense of morality has changed (e.g. slavery, women's rights, war, genocide, eating habits, animal husbandry, etc) whereas the instructions from God have not? That indicates to me that the main driver of what's moral is culture, not theology.

(Keep in mind this thread is not arguing about the existence of a god or gods. That's a different topic.)

Just talked to a friend about this the other day. There is more urgency to live as good as you can with no sight of eternity beyond this life. As a believer in God, my creator, Jesus Christ, His Son, my salvation and Holy Spirit who has called me, I can see beyond the death that I will inevitably face because of sin, my failure to live perfectly, and see that His blood has paid for that sin even though I will no doubt sin until my death.

Completely agree with you. As you look around you as a non believer you can clearly see that it is not wise to take others lives due to consequences. The only difference is that the consequences for the lives of the believer is beyond death instead of finished at death. There is only 1 consequence that surpasses our lives and it is the rejection or lack of belief in God, the creator, His Son, Jesus Christ sent before the foundation of the world and the Holy Spirit who calls us individually, personally.

 

[Rentahamster]

Why don't you want me to?
You should share her with the group so we can create more humans to hunt and gather!
There is no moral ground for you to stand on. And even if your wife doesn't want to I don't care because propagating the species is the main goal here.

Because as a society we value the exercise of free will and do not condone coercion in most cases, and it is in accordance with those moral values any unwanted action on your part is considered assault, so if you attempt to have sex with my girl without my or her consent, I am within my rights to defend myself. Probably by bat, bullet, or hamster swarm. I'll let you decide

The other ground that I stand on is that I most definitely give her a more satisfying D than you would, TR

 

[Rentahamster]

Who says they need your permission? What if he has superior genetics to yours? Aren't you robbing society of a superior future citizen?

Me? Her? The law? It's good that we as a society don't deem those morally sound reasons. I'm sure glad for that "Thou shalt not rape" commandment.

 

[iconmaster]

Does it? Ancient Greek society. Good example or bad example?

Possibly the best example in support of your position, but also a bit wobbly as an example. I'm not qualified to give you a comprehensive overview, but at least in the ancients I've read there is a definite thread running through ethics, honoring and being rewarded by the gods, and the state of the afterlife. They probably would not think of God as the lawgiver in the way Jews and Christians do, I suppose.

The problem for atheistic systems of ethics is not that we can't come up with good principles to follow. The problem is we so frequently lack the motivation to follow them. For example, it's fairly easy to live a life of integrity so long as circumstances make it easy. But if it becomes inconvenient, career-limiting, or even dangerous to be honest, do I have a motivation beyond my own well-being to continue in my ethical framework? If I'm the one holding myself to my system, what stops me from bending my own rules?

 

[TrainedRage]

Because as a society we value the exercise of free will and do not condone coercion in most cases, and it is in accordance with those moral values any unwanted action on your part is considered assault, so if you attempt to have sex with my girl without my or her consent, I am within my rights to defend myself. Probably by bat, bullet, or hamster swarm. I'll let you decide

The other ground that I stand on is that I most definitely give her a more satisfying D than you would, TR

We are living in a Godless world I don't have any morals. My free will is to have sex with whomever I please. What society are you talking about anyway? The one influenced by Gods? Pshhh. I don't know what those are. Women are sub servant to men and should do their bidding.

Also this is me NOT playing Devils advocate..... There is no such thing as the Devil.

 

[Sign]

Moral frameworks and religious frameworks, while related, are two different things. I'm not playing word games. You either need god to command you how to live your life in order to be moral, or you don't. I've given examples of societies that have derived codes of conduct in a prosperous society that didn't rely on edits from a supernatural creator.

None of the societies you have listed were free from religion. You have not done this.

I agree that Western Civilization is cool. I'm asking you where is the cause and effect specifically that it is Christianity in and of itself that is causing this lack of violence, despite belief in Christianity falling worldwide.

Christianity and its moral teachings, are the reason the West has become so successful. The fruits of that success has spread to the rest of the world.

You are going to have to show a source from this.

No it's not. There are studies that demonstrate this.

The studies do not prove the lack of God, though, which is my point.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

Bogus. I do find it funny that atheism has basically been pushed out of academia, yet in terms of something against traditional religions (particularly Christianity) it is being pushed as a strong alternative these days.

The truth is the reason atheism died out in academic circles is because by pushing it, academics in its place went to the next logical step, "survival of the fittest", and realized that this would only produce a cold, bleak reality and the end of a species. Belief in God or a God-like entity is simply natural for us as we're spiritual creatures in our nature, and that belief more often than not gives direction and purpose in life.

So what we're seeing now is a shift or movement away from encouragement of people buying into traditional religious systems, but ironically placing religious-like faith and order in man-made systems, movements, and idols. Technology is serving this purpose pretty massively for many people, in fact. You can see that in how feverishly people are about certain political figures, entertainment devices, celebrities, socio-political movements, etc.

I think one of the reasons things are way more polarizing in these areas now is precisely because of a major shift for many people away from firm, strong morals and values, which is something of a direct result from lack of some semi-stable religious structure in their lives. Religion has never been inherently a bad thing, but there have been people screwed up in the head that've used religion to their own bad purposes. Especially among younger people, there's a big lack of religion among them and I think that helps foster an environment where nihilism, narcissism and ego can run rampant (social media being no help in this).

I'm just trying to get back to your original point about the "realness" of morality. It's not relative. As long as a society has specific values in mind that it wants to maximize, a moral framework can be constructed to maximize those values. That is very real.

Thing is many societies across the world for many, MANY centuries have always used some type of religious doctrine as the reference point in determining the moral standards of their people. This goes back thousands of years not just for European or American nations, but Asian ones, African ones, Latin ones, Arab ones etc.

Doesn't matter if they were monotheistic or polytheistic, either. Some type of religious doctrine (or establishment of mythology that can be seen as religious in nature) has always served as their reference point in determining not just moral standards, but legal/judicial precedent in their cultures and societies as well.

This thread isn't about religious frameworks. That's too general. It is specifically about god-given moral absolutes.

The thing is, as we see today when you create this condition you're essentially saying that man should be in control absolutely of their own moral absolutes. But then we quickly realize that many people naturally respond subserviently to others they place above them, so that allows allocation of what becomes moral absolutes within the hands of a select few.

And when that happens, they acquire power. People don't like giving up power, by and large, just like how animals in the animal kingdom don't give away power unless they are defeated for such (and in some cases, killed). So that's one issue when you decide to remove god (in the context of a religious doctrine) from playing a part in defining moral absolution. The other issue is that you create moral relativism, i.e "my truth is my true, your truth is your truth.".

In reality that maybe can work on some limited level, the problem is that very quickly anyone can start to argue the validity of their truth even if it a repulsive one because, by nature of supporting moral relativism, you kind of have to get rid of any institution or body of moral framework which operates in the confines of absolutes. Traditional religious institutions fit such a role, and the one that does so arguably the most is Christianity. Hence why it's been under attack so virulently the past decade or so, and it'll only likely get worst.

With moral relativism you end up creating a slippery slope and an inverse effect of the Overton Window where, instead of it shifting to narrower and narrower parameters, it expands outward to cover the gamut of more or less everything by loosening restrictions on what can be considered a valid "good" morality. And over time that just leads to more chaos. Should also state that moral relativism, at least in terms of an observation from the political space, is generally a liberal concept. As in it's something you'd see popularized from liberal think-tanks and areas of theology moreso than conservative ones.

I'd argue the problem today is there is very little balance between liberal and conservative values in synergy so we're seeing a massive push for rapid expansion of moral relativism fueled by an atheistic viewpoint towards traditional religious institutions while shifting people's belief systems and faith into man-made institutions that put mankind as the absolute and center, instead.

No wonder society's stuck in a rut these days xD.

 

[Rentahamster]

We are living in a Godless world I don't have any morals. My free will is to have sex with whomever I please. What society are you talking about anyway? The one influenced by Gods? Pshhh. I don't know what those are. Women are sub servant to men and should do their bidding.

Also this is me NOT playing Devils advocate..... There is no such thing as the Devil.

By those actions, in the reality we live in, you'd be in jail pretty quickly, which would be justified. The system works!