Some religionists claim that making “decent” or “good” or “moral” decisions is impossible apart from a God who gives definition to those words, since according to their view, God is the author of all that is good. The Christian’s God is regarded as the reference point for all created things and is supposed to be the sole source from which all words or ideas gain meaning or significance. Apologists would like to strip non-religious people of the ability to frame up their conversations in terms of “good or bad” because they lack the reference point of God, who alone enables logical thought and expressions.
What is not taken into consideration by such people is the power of simple self-preservation which is quite evident apart from religion. Peter Hitchens says on his blog, “[without the Christian God as our moral reference point], when we think nobody is looking, or we'll never be found out, we're more inclined to jump that red light, or spread poisonous gossip about a career rival.” Hitchens cannot believe that people might be naturally inclined toward an orderly life simply because it is beneficial to their own general health and well-being, and that people can even be naturally inclined to have some concern for the health and well-being of other people. If the agnostic jumps that red light, he not only endangers himself and others immediately, he’s encouraging a disorderly culture in which danger generally increases for himself and others. Similarly, if I spread poisonous gossip about a career rival, I risk indirectly hurting myself by developing a reputation as a liar wherewith I cannot be trusted and my overall career standing is damaged.
Morality is not dependent upon God. There are readily identifiable factors in identifying good and bad, right and wrong, which do not rely in any way on God. To some degree, morality can be instinctive such as the interests of self-preservation. There is also a socially learned aspect, such as an interest in not behaving in a manner which is blatantly contrary to the behaviour of those around you. Surely these sorts of factors pre-date any coded norms of organized faith-based groups. Religionists certainly cannot make an exclusive claim on morality.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
You are assuming that because someone lives a moral life without the motive of the existence of God that they are somehow proving that God is not the cause of morality in the first place. You don't have to be motivated by belief in God for the idea of moral rights and wrongs to be embedded into the fabric of your being. You and others may not attribute it to God the same way you don't attribute your very existence to God and yet you still live. You don't need to acknowledge God is your Creator to live any more than you need to acknowledge and understand that morality exist because we are created with a moral sense by God and that He is the standard of all goodness.
Your argument that an atheist can be just as moral as a theist doesn't work. Of course they can be moral, they live in the same real world the Christian does they just don't have a concrete philosophical structure for their morality. The difference though in Christianity is that we aren't to be gaging every action by whether it's good or bad in fear of God, but because Christ lives in us and has transformed our nature we live lives pleasing to God naturally or rather supernaturally.
Yes, many Christians are less moral than many atheist and so you could say this whole proposition is preposterous, however, there are different maturity levels in Christians and as we grow closer to Jesus the more our lives are to look like His. Many Christians step through the door to salvation, but never move forward to grow in their likeness to Christ and the old self is still prevalent in their lives. But then you have those who are like Mother Theresa or Billy Graham or others who have lived undefiled lives in close walk with Jesus.
Karla, it is starting to appear that you are letting your imagination get in the way of reading and interacting with what I am actually writing.
I do not have to “prove” that the Christian God is not the cause of all morality, and I do not have to argue that an atheist is just as or more moral than a theist. As soon as you produce some kind of evidence for your perspective, I’ll be glad to interact with that.
Meanwhile, my point in this post was to say that it is absurd for a theist to make the claim that God is the inventor of morality and holds all rights to its definition. Instead of making my points again in this comment, I urge you to read the brief post again.
Your point about maturity and growth and more morality or less morality can be seen in any people group with any beliefs or lack of beliefs all over the world throughout the history of humanity. The Christian account in this regard is only unique because you believe (by faith, not by evidence) that a supernatural spirit lives inside of you and transforms you.
And to me it makes no logical sense to attribute morality to evolutionary process which is the only option one has left when they divorce morality from God. An agnostic/atheist can only attribute it to evolution because their worldview will not allow them any other option. No matter what topic we write about we have to come back to ontology preceding epistemology.
Aha, so you think it is possible to work out something as complex as our being without first addressing how we come to knowledge? I think we have a cart and horse problem here. You cannot deal with ontology honestly if your epistemology is jammed up with a very significant presupposition about the existence of God.
This goes back to our very first meeting in this blogosphere. You are comfortable presupposing God without a reasonable argument for his existence, and I am not. I don't think that you are capable of intellectual honesty with the topic of ontology or morality, etc. because of your epistemology.
Again, the burden is not on me to prove evolution or any other theory. The scientific data does not make me dogmatic about evolution, but it certainly appears to lead to that conclusion...far more likely than the existence of the Christian God. If you have a substantial argument to the contrary, I'd love to hear it.
Being has to proceed knowing. If God exist then He is the standard of all knowledge. If He does not that all our knowledge derives through evolution. We can look at classical arguments of the two, but we both have to acknowledge that we have an ontological position on which we base our knowing. It is circular, but true. If He does exist, would it not make sense that He would be the starting poing of knowledge? It seems to me that all epistomological arguments become nonsensical if the epistomology is not established upon ontology. I'm not saying this to avoid classical evidence, but becuase of intellectual honesty I am not sure we can get away from the primacy of ontology.
If God does exist then my epistomology is right where it needs to be. If He doesn't then it is "jammed up" as you say. I have to be honest though to acknowledge that in all I say I speak from the Christian worldview of who God is. I grant you that you speak from the agnostic worldview of the unknowablity of ontology. So you have to stay in the realm of epistomology. That is the making of your worldview.
So where we are at is comparing and contrasting these worldviews to see if they line up with reality. Do they provide adequate answers or are they lacking. And if they are lacking, why? Is it because the entire worldview is faulty or is it the finiteness of knowledge, or what. We have to explore these ideas to get at the truth.
You keep saying the burden isn't on you to prove God doesn't exist. Okay. I'll accept that. I have accepted that. But I would say that you can participate in a discussion about how the worldview of the unknowability of the existence of God works in the real world versus the worldview that says he does exist.
Like with morality. How do humans in general have a moral code of conduct? I hear many say self-preservation, but that doesn't explain why one person would sacrifice themselves for others when there is no benefit to themselves and when doing so brings about pain or death.
Of course being preceeds knowing, no debate there. But you cannot have any confidence in your ontology (look up the root origins of the very word itself) without first resolving your epistemology. Being preceeds knowing, but epistemology must preceed ontology, or you may end up (as I believe you have ended up) with a wrong presupposition clouding your ability to deal with any issue in an intellectually honest way.
Post a Comment