View Full Version : Can a Person be truly Moral and Ethical Without God?



Joe Daddy
03-28-2010, 03:31 PM
Well, can you? Must one actually believe in God to be good?

Is religion required to achieve morality?

Can Atheists, Agnostics and Humanists achieve a loving, moral and ethical life in society today?

silvergrove
03-28-2010, 03:47 PM
Yes.

How about all those people who lived before Moses or Jesus came along? In those groups of people, you were bound to have moral and ethical persons (all relative in their time period). Humanity does have a primal and savage nature but it's not enough to wipe us out in prehistoric times.

Even after religious prophets came around, how about the rest of the world? Native North and South Americans have never heard of Jesus till Westerners came to their land. The Asian societies already had an ethical system in place before Christianity arrived. And morality is all perspective. Native Americans may have viewed themselves as ethically and morally superior to the strange "white" men who are here, especially after the invaders were killing their people and taking their lands.

I have ancestors who have never heard of Jesus until the last few generations and even then, I believe that at least most of them are good people. And you have to understand, morality and ethics is a societal based concept.

A society that develops its own ethics for its own environment will thrive and will maintain itself. A nice case study would be the Polynesian societies of Easter Island and Tikopia.

Easter Island had a Polynesian society that refused to change its ethics and eventually succumbed to starvation, warfare, cannibalism, and societal collapse.

Tikopia is another Polynesian society that has survived since they adapted. Pork is one of the most highly valued meats in their culture (much like beef is in ours) but the islanders decided to discard pig raising in lieu of limited resources on their islands. They practice infanticide, expulsion of youths, celibacy, and birth control to maintain their population on an island that is 2 square miles. This may seem horrifying to our Western culture but to them, it's perfectly ethical and moral to sacrifice some members of the population than to have the entire population suffer from famine and overpopulation.

So all in all, yes you can be moral and ethical without having God in your lives. There are those who are immoral with or without God, but to use God as the key factor in deciding if a person is moral is flawed at best.

skyrick
03-28-2010, 03:57 PM
Well, can you?

Yes.


Must one actually believe in God to be good?

No.


Is religion required to achieve morality?

No.


Can Atheists, Agnostics and Humanists achieve a loving, moral and ethical life in society today?

Yes.

Casey
03-28-2010, 04:01 PM
I'll just second what skyrick so eloquently posted.

possumfritter
03-28-2010, 05:33 PM
Whose standard of morals and ethics are you talking about? Without God? Yes.

PennyQuilts
03-28-2010, 06:24 PM
The old testament religion imposed a standard of behavior. The early christian faith imposed ramifications for failure. Other religions do the same. Knowing what is right/wrong is an intellectual exercise. Wanting to do right goes more to morality, depending on the motivation. You might want to help out the little old lady down the street so she'll leave you some of her money when she dies. Or you might just want to do the right thing and help her out.

Most religions attempt to inspire good acts/deeds - some with a carrot, some with a stick. However, a parent can teach a child to "share," "be nice," "tell the truth," etc. without ever mentioning god.

Young children begin to develop a conscience in order to please a parent figure. Over time, most internalize it, with or without the help of faith in a particular religion.

Some have postulated that about 10% of the population are sociopaths, although that number is surely apt to increase given the turmoil so many families have experienced in the past two generations that has disrupted children and their caregivers in the relevant age. I used to dread the diagnosis of reactive attachment disorder when I worked as a guardian ad litem because many of those kids are heading down the path to sociopathic thinking - the lack of ability to experience empathy. Many of these kids appeared to have absolutely no conscience or ability to see out of anything but their own needs. Most kids aren't like that. They are goofs while their brains are developing and do things they would be ashamed to do if they were adults. But that is primarily a judgment problem, not simply a lack of ability to empathize or feel guilt.

Edmond_Outsider
03-29-2010, 12:53 PM
Yes. Basic conformity to social mores is hard wired into our psyches. We are social animals because it gives us survivablity since we have little besides intellegence and social bonds to protect us from all the creatures who have far greater advantages.

Also, our bonds to each other, give us the instinct to be nice, take care of those in need, all all the other pleasant aspects of human nature.

Our opposing competitive side is about equal and inspires us to do the opposite.

We are complex and contradictory beings.

However, religion or lack of it is not really the cause or effect of moral and ethical behavior. I have hard core atheist friends who are far more moral, ethical, and curse less than I do and I'm not particularly immoral or unethical.

onthestrip
03-30-2010, 12:57 PM
Absolutely a person can be moral and ethical without a god. You dont have to be religious to live by the golden rule. You dont have to go to church and pray to think, "why would I do this bad thing to this person when I wouldnt want it done to me."

A person shouldnt have to have the constant reminder of eternal damnation to not do something immoral. Its quite sad that there are those that do.

mugofbeer
03-30-2010, 01:31 PM
In a single word, YES.

JohnDenver
03-30-2010, 02:36 PM
I just listened to a presentation by Dr. Joshua Greene about Chimps and the morality they live by... Sharing... caring.. Murder.. etc. It boiled down to our "gut" feelings, which we know are right, to being our "inner chimp." They are just rights and wrongs, without the Bible telling us.

Current Research - Princeton University’s Center for the Study of Brain, Mind and Behavior (CSBMB) (http://www.pni.princeton.edu/CSBMB/html/current_research.shtml)

More: http://audio.wnyc.org/radiolab/radiolab042806a.mp3

mugofbeer
03-30-2010, 03:06 PM
They are just rights and wrongs, without the Bible telling us.

Rights and wrongs are learned thoughts and behaviors. What may be right or wrong to you or I is the total opposite to someone else who has either been taught that way or has nothing to compare it to. How else would women who belong to a certain religion that treats them as nothing more than breeding cattle blow themselves up in a subway killing other women and children in the name of that religion? They know of nothing else and have been taught to believe that sort of thing is right behavior.

flintysooner
03-30-2010, 03:29 PM
The question wasn't clear to me.

It seems to me that anyone could devise an ethic.

On the other hand I would find it surprising if anyone could actually achieve any ethic regardless of the author.

mugofbeer
03-30-2010, 06:53 PM
The question wasn't clear to me.

It seems to me that anyone could devise an ethic.

On the other hand I would find it surprising if anyone could actually achieve any ethic regardless of the author.

I totally agree with the statement that "anyone could devise an ethic." And I'll throw in MORAL, too. One person's morals are another person's "progressive" ideals and thoughts.

ronronnie1
03-31-2010, 10:08 AM
Moral without a god?

YES. Also, belief in god does not automatically equal "moral." Just look at the catholic church.

JohnDenver
03-31-2010, 11:41 PM
Science can answer moral quesions.

Sam Harris: Science can answer moral questions | Video on TED.com (http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html)

Caboose
04-01-2010, 08:06 AM
Obviously.

scootinger
04-05-2010, 11:24 PM
This question bothers me.

sam greenroyd
04-06-2010, 07:32 AM
Just take a look at peoples morals today as compared to 30yrs ago when more people as a whole went to church. ( I rest my case )

possumfritter
04-06-2010, 10:14 AM
1970's...really? Back when Billy Graham was preaching? It did seem like more younger folks were going to church, maybe as a result of the "Jesus Movement."

But attending church does not necessarily make one moral and ethical...maybe more religious or spritual?

ewoodard
04-06-2010, 11:43 AM
Just take a look at peoples morals today as compared to 30yrs ago when more people as a whole went to church. ( I rest my case )

To me morals and ethics are taught at home. 30 years ago this was the case. Today many parents raised their kids in front of the TV hoping they would get the message. Kids need to SEE the parents being moral nad ethical. How many times have you seen the news where parents are using their kids to help them steal items from stores?

sam greenroyd
04-06-2010, 12:16 PM
1970's...really? Back when Billy Graham was preaching? It did seem like more younger folks were going to church, maybe as a result of the "Jesus Movement."

But attending church does not necessarily make one moral and ethical...maybe more religious or spritual?

There's alot of cases where people are not moral, ethical or even religious that go to church. I'm talking about as a whole as a nation.

sam greenroyd
04-06-2010, 12:18 PM
To me morals and ethics are taught at home. 30 years ago this was the case. Today many parents raised their kids in front of the TV hoping they would get the message. Kids need to SEE the parents being moral nad ethical. How many times have you seen the news where parents are using their kids to help them steal items from stores?

exactly, that's what i'm talkin about.

possumfritter
04-06-2010, 12:39 PM
One thing is for certain...if parents today are relying on the TV to teach their kids ethics and morals, then we are indeed in a heap of trouble. Gone are the days of Ozzie and Harriet, Leave It To Beaver, My Three Sons, Little House On The Prairie, etc, etc, etc. Now they watch shows like Two and a Half Men and such.

Yep, we be in a big ole heap of trouble!

mugofbeer
04-06-2010, 12:58 PM
Spongebob Squarepants is my son's moral light. (kidding)

What made me post this was that yesterday he was watching his half hour limit and decided to watch Garfield. A commercial came on and it was for the Bravo Network and RuPaul's Project Runway drag queen contest. Now, maybe I'm showing my old-fashioned-ness but I'm sorry, that commercial has no place being on the Cartoon Network at 3:30 in the PM! Adult Swim time, sure, not during after school time.

PennyQuilts
04-06-2010, 12:59 PM
I am not a church goer but I think the people who regularly go to church tend to hang out with positive people and that is contagious. Doesn't work with everyone but if you hang out with nice people, I think it is easier to keep your perspective and the eye on the ball when it comes to raising your kids. A lot of parents are overwhelmed and let things slide they should be attending to because they are worn out. Being around positive people is like an emotional vacation and rejuvenation, even if it is only a couple of hours a week.

sam greenroyd
04-06-2010, 02:19 PM
I am not a church goer but I think the people who regularly go to church tend to hang out with positive people and that is contagious. Doesn't work with everyone but if you hang out with nice people, I think it is easier to keep your perspective and the eye on the ball when it comes to raising your kids. A lot of parents are overwhelmed and let things slide they should be attending to because they are worn out. Being around positive people is like an emotional vacation and rejuvenation, even if it is only a couple of hours a week.

You sound like a church goer to me Penny. Good thought

onthestrip
04-06-2010, 02:39 PM
Just take a look at peoples morals today as compared to 30yrs ago when more people as a whole went to church. ( I rest my case )

Are you saying people were more moral 30 years ago? If so, that is just your opinion. Ive never seen a study that shows the morality of this nation 30 years ago compared to today.

PennyQuilts
04-06-2010, 02:43 PM
You sound like a church goer to me Penny. Good thought

I went when my kids were little but gave it up. I still remember how much less stressed I frequently was during the weeks I attended. Being around happy people, especially older people with good attitudes just helped. If I had high blood pressure, I think I'd go back just for the medicinal effects.

sam greenroyd
04-06-2010, 02:44 PM
Are you saying people were more moral 30 years ago? If so, that is just your opinion. Ive never seen a study that shows the morality of this nation 30 years ago compared to today.

Yes that is my opinion and no I didn't prepare a study for my opinion, if you've seen one post it.

PennyQuilts
04-06-2010, 02:48 PM
I think we are a far coarser people than we once were. Of course, that varies from place to place and the norms from place to place differ. One thing I have always noticed in Oklahoma as compared to back east is the level of swearing. They are just ridiculous, here - grown men using gutter language in a sit down restaurant with kids and older people right at the next table. I don't recall - EVER - that happening in Northern Virginia and we ate out, frequently. I am sure there are other places where people use language like that but the area where we lived was not one of them.

sam greenroyd
04-06-2010, 03:01 PM
I think we are a far coarser people than we once were. Of course, that varies from place to place and the norms from place to place differ. One thing I have always noticed in Oklahoma as compared to back east is the level of swearing. They are just ridiculous, here - grown men using gutter language in a sit down restaurant with kids and older people right at the next table. I don't recall - EVER - that happening in Northern Virginia and we ate out, frequently. I am sure there are other places where people use language like that but the area where we lived was not one of them.

I've nearly seen fights if bad language was used in front of my family when i was a kid. Thats the kinda stuff i was talkin about years ago,you didn't see it to often back then.

Caboose
04-06-2010, 04:24 PM
Yes that is my opinion and no I didn't prepare a study for my opinion, if you've seen one post it.

I rest my case.

possumfritter
04-06-2010, 05:06 PM
I think we might be talking more about common courtesy and civility than we are morals and ethics. And people just aren't as polite as they used to be, seems to me.

Then again, maybe politeness is based on good morals and ethics?

sam greenroyd
04-07-2010, 06:48 AM
I rest my case.

I'm sorry caboose I guess I missed where you stated your case.

Caboose
04-07-2010, 08:44 AM
I'm sorry caboose I guess I missed where you stated your case.

I was just illustrating how weak your case was... that you previously rested... with nothing to back it up with... and then subsequently admitting that it was based solely on personal opinion.

sam greenroyd
04-07-2010, 11:42 AM
I was just illustrating how weak your case was... that you previously rested... with nothing to back it up with... and then subsequently admitting that it was based solely on personal opinion.
So in your opinion do you think morals are better or worse? Or are you just looking for a argument? I think most people will agree with my OPINION.

Caboose
04-07-2010, 12:03 PM
So in your opinion do you think morals are better or worse? Or are you just looking for a argument? I think most people will agree with my OPINION.


I think that morals are probably not much different now than 30 years ago. Morality is a bit of a gray area to begin with. Morals are just behaviors that are agreed upon as acceptable by society. In a sense, you could say that it is impossible for a society to be immoral, or for morality to get "better or worse" over time within a society. Whatever set of behavior society accepts at any given time is what defines morality.

Regardless, going to church does not make one more moral or ethical nor is any belief system or religion required for one to be moral and ethical. One is not required to believe in ghosts, unicorns, or an invisible man in the sky to conform to social norms. The very idea is preposterous.

It doesn't matter how many people agree with your OPINION. That is not what we use to determine fact.

sam greenroyd
04-07-2010, 01:12 PM
I think that morals are probably not much different now than 30 years ago. Morality is a bit of a gray area to begin with. Morals are just behaviors that are agreed upon as acceptable by society. In a sense, you could say that it is impossible for a society to be immoral, or for morality to get "better or worse" over time within a society. Whatever set of behavior society accepts at any given time is what defines morality.

Regardless, going to church does not make one more moral or ethical nor is any belief system or religion required for one to be moral and ethical. One is not required to believe in ghosts, unicorns, or an invisible man in the sky to conform to social norms. The very idea is preposterous.

It doesn't matter how many people agree with your OPINION. That is not what we use to determine fact.
I think church does improve morals so we are going to have to agree to disagree. when you say what we use to determine fact. who is we ? is that okctalk or is that you ?

onthestrip
04-07-2010, 02:35 PM
I think church does improve morals so we are going to have to agree to disagree. when you say what we use to determine fact. who is we ? is that okctalk or is that you ?

Im pretty sure by "we" he is referring to everyone. We, or this society, usually dont rely on the opinions of people to gather facts. We usually conduct studies, polls, and analysis to gather facts rather than recording the opinions of the masses.

sam greenroyd
04-08-2010, 08:17 AM
Im pretty sure by "we" he is referring to everyone. We, or this society, usually dont rely on the opinions of people to gather facts. We usually conduct studies, polls, and analysis to gather facts rather than recording the opinions of the masses.
Listen I'm not trying to be a smarta-- here or anything but you and caboose were saying I need a study done before I can state my opinions and I've seen a lot of opinions on threads without studys. my reason for asking who we is, was to make a point,did you do a study as to whether eveyone is in agreement with you guys on facts or can we use our opinions. If it's the rules of okc talk not to voice opinion than I'm dead wrong and I appologize to anyone offended.
I do feel its time to move on, i'm sure everyone's ready to hear something else maybe we can talk again on something else later.

PennyQuilts
04-08-2010, 08:45 AM
Listen I'm not trying to be a smarta-- here or anything but you and caboose were saying I need a study done before I can state my opinions and I've seen a lot of opinions on threads without studys. my reason for asking who we is, was to make a point,did you do a study as to whether eveyone is in agreement with you guys on facts or can we use our opinions. If it's the rules of okc talk not to voice opinion than I'm dead wrong and I appologize to anyone offended.
I do feel its time to move on, i'm sure everyone's ready to hear something else maybe we can talk again on something else later.

There are some people who are trolls who just waltz in, state an opinioin (generally amounting to a raspberry) and dodge back out without contributing to the discussion. I don't think you are doing that. IMO, for what it is worth, it is fine to give an opinion so long as it contributes to the discussion and isn't just to troll. That is hard to define but not that hard to identify.

I have noticed over the last year that demanding a study or a poll or citation to support a position has become knee jerk to the point of being silly. At some point in time, some people have decided that polls are better than opinions based on life experience, and that only people who have published something (even just on the internet) have opinions that matter.

I think it has to do with a confusion about what constitutes anectdotal vs. statistical evidence. A lot of people try to say that something is a certain way strictly based on their opinion and a smattering of anectdotal experiences and that is one thing. But to have an opinion, particularly one that is based on long-term life experience is another.

I run into this sort of thing on a regular basis in that some people want to discount years of relevant experience amounts to nothing unless there is a study or poll to verify consistent observations. In fact, I even get this regarding things about which I could testify about as an expert if called upon in a court of law.

Caboose
04-08-2010, 09:13 AM
you and caboose were saying I need a study done before I can state my opinions

I never said anything of the sort.

LeethalDose
04-08-2010, 10:32 AM
I do feel its time to move on, i'm sure everyone's ready to hear something else maybe we can talk again on something else later.

It amazed me to read what to me were very accurate *opinions* about how far down society as a whole and the younger generation especially had descended, very spot on observations that, while reading, i was nodding my head up and down in agreement - only to find out at the end that it was written by an ancient greek philosopher - and echoed by many many others down through the ages.

Don't you think they thought the same of us when we were growing up, Sam? It is kinda that "not in my backyard" kind of syndrome - "while *my* family was moral - it was the *others* that caused the misunderstandings."

Isn't part of growing older *not* understanding the youth and morals of the *modern* society? (I'm not calling you OLD, Sam, just older <grin>)

To bring this perhaps more back to topic - i get to play the antichrist and state that, while not acknowledging the Christian creator God at all, the Buddhist ideal represents, (like those of Christ), the highest morals and ethics possible (just my opinion - no studies proving this cited! and, just FYI - the Buddha *does* teach of an after-life that may be heaven or hell or human! - but no all powerful, in control of it all, creator God.)

So - next question - is there a moral and ethical God that allows all this to sh*t to happen when He has the power to prevent it? NO NO NO - just kidding - please - no flaming!

Let me try to redeem myself - No doubt in my book, more than going to church, more than getting the teachings of Christ preached to ya - PRACTICING THEM (the teachings of Christ) EVERY DAY in EVERY WAY benefits all mankind. I am still working on improving myself that way. Got a long way to go...

Caboose
04-08-2010, 11:20 AM
It amazed me to read what to me were very accurate *opinions* about how far down society as a whole and the younger generation especially had descended, very spot on observations that, while reading, i was nodding my head up and down in agreement - only to find out at the end that it was written by an ancient greek philosopher - and echoed by many many others down through the ages.

Don't you think they thought the same of us when we were growing up, Sam? It is kinda that "not in my backyard" kind of syndrome - "while *my* family was moral - it was the *others* that caused the misunderstandings."

Isn't part of growing older *not* understanding the youth and morals of the *modern* society? (I'm not calling you OLD, Sam, just older <grin>)

To bring this perhaps more back to topic - i get to play the antichrist and state that, while not acknowledging the Christian creator God at all, the Buddhist ideal represents, (like those of Christ), the highest morals and ethics possible (just my opinion - no studies proving this cited! and, just FYI - the Buddha *does* teach of an after-life that may be heaven or hell or human! - but no all powerful, in control of it all, creator God.)

So - next question - is there a moral and ethical God that allows all this to sh*t to happen when He has the power to prevent it? NO NO NO - just kidding - please - no flaming!

Let me try to redeem myself - No doubt in my book, more than going to church, more than getting the teachings of Christ preached to ya - PRACTICING THEM (the teachings of Christ) EVERY DAY in EVERY WAY benefits all mankind. I am still working on improving myself that way. Got a long way to go...

Your last sentence illustrates perfectly the problem with Christianity. Thanks to good old Saint Paul, the crux of the religion shifted to believing in and worshiping Jesus, rather then trying to be like Jesus. It is much easier to say you believe (knowing that is all it takes to get into Heaven) and continuing your despicable ways than it is to actually live as Jesus taught people to live.

LeethalDose
04-08-2010, 11:50 AM
Your last sentence illustrates perfectly the problem with Christianity. Thanks to good old Saint Paul...

PennyQuilts has taught me to choose my words carefully...

PennyQuilts
04-08-2010, 04:03 PM
PennyQuilts has taught me to choose my words carefully...

Probably doesn't matter how well you choose them - they'll be twisted. But at least you can go back and trot them out to clarify if you have the energy. :LolLolLol

LeethalDose
04-08-2010, 04:16 PM
Probably doesn't matter...

How'd i rate a *probably* - you mean there is hope for me?

PennyQuilts
04-08-2010, 06:40 PM
How'd i rate a *probably* - you mean there is hope for me?

Oh darlin' you are not only surrounded by hope, you are a ray of sunshine. And I don't care if you lean right or left.

Martin
04-08-2010, 07:53 PM
first... to answer the question that the thread poses. yes, one can be moral and ethical without god. i'd say that morality and ethics are components of culture and can therefore exist independently of any particular religious belief.


thanks to good old saint paul, the crux of the religion shifted to believing in and worshiping Jesus, rather then trying to be like jesus.

granted, there are those that hold to this theological belief and i won't argue the validity of it one way or the other. however, just looking at the words attributed to paul while making as little exegetical interpretation as possible i'd have to say you're wrong on this. but... i'm interested in where you get this notion.

-M

PennyQuilts
04-08-2010, 07:59 PM
granted, there are those that hold to this theological belief and i won't argue the validity of it one way or the other. however, just looking at the words attributed to paul while making as little exegetical interpretation as possible i'd have to say you're wrong on this. but... i'm interested in where you get this notion.
I don't recall where I've read this but it is a theory that I have also read.

I've also read that Paul was instrumental in switching Christianity to a more gnostic religion as opposed to following the jewish tradition. I probably haven't said that properly but I hope you know what I mean.

Martin
04-08-2010, 08:16 PM
i've also read that Paul was instrumental in switching christianity to a more gnostic religion as opposed to following the jewish tradition.

i wouldn't say gnostic as some of paul's writings discuss some tenets of gnosticism as being problematic... but i get the gist of what you're saying and agree. paul certainly addresses the issue of jewish tradition within the christian church on several occasions. i'm not sure i'd say he opposed jewish tradition per se as much as he opposed the requirement that jewish tradition continue under the christian religion.

-M

PennyQuilts
04-08-2010, 08:43 PM
i wouldn't say gnostic as some of paul's writings discuss some tenets of gnosticism as being problematic... but i get the gist of what you're saying and agree. paul certainly addresses the issue of jewish tradition within the christian church on several occasions. i'm not sure i'd say he opposed jewish tradition per se as much as he opposed the requirement that jewish tradition continue under the christian religion.

-M

Much better, MMM - thanks.

Reality
04-08-2010, 08:58 PM
Truth is only one mans perception. I say that because before I speak I want everyone to know my perception or my truth. I believe in God and believe that he loves all of us. That being said I believe that he has put in all of us, a perfect blend of emotions that shape our moral fiber. So in short...yes those that don't believe in God can be moral and upright. Just look around you. There are many very good people who do not believe but are wonderful people to be around. I believe that God understands all beyond what we can imagine...even an understanding in those who don't believe in him for whatever reason...so I think God has created a place for them as well and you can find it in Mathew 5:5 (Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth). If you look up the definition of meek you will find a few different meanings here are the ones I found when I looked it up:

meek [miːk]
adj
1. patient, long-suffering, or submissive in disposition or nature; humble
2. spineless or spiritless; compliant
3. an obsolete word for gentle

As you can see these definitions would describe those who are good but just choose not to believe. Our God is a very loving God and will not see such judgements passed on those who are inherently good. There is an unimaginable reward for those who believe, however there is reward also for those who are not evil people. I know that there may be those who want to preach fire and brimstone but they don't realize that they are forcing people to make a choice out of fear which is something that God would never want. Too many people are misguided and do not realize how loving our God really is.