10 ms·

No one needs religion to lead a moral life. That's not the argument. But without the transcendent, without a higher power, we have no grounding for our morali

No one needs religion to lead a moral life. That's not the argument. But without the transcendent, without a higher power, we have no grounding for our morality. Everything becomes subjective and "post-modern". Actions then become "justifiable" - if there is such a thing - by whatever criteria suits us: the greater good, the good of the nation, whatever. But essentially self-interest takes over completely. The more we move away from God the worse our societies will become.

heylook 3y ago
> But essentially self-interest takes over completely. Orrrrrrrr... maybe... it doesn't? Maybe even when we're all alone and have to figure things out for ourselves we can come to understand ourselves in genuine relation to those around us and discover a kind and empathetic morality built from logical first principles? Even without the fear of the judgement of almighty sky daddy?
- henry_bone 3y ago
  Humans are nothing if not self interested. But that's beside the point here. Why "kind and empathetic"? Who said that's how we should be? If we are nothing more than an arbitrary arrangement of matter, formed according to arbitrary laws of physics, and only for a relative moment, then what is "kind" and "empathetic"? In a godless universe, you are no more significant than a rock. The only sound position you can then take is that there is no such thing as morality.
  - Jensson 3y ago
    People feel good when they help others and feel bad when they get scolded by their peers. That is our inner moral compass and is the core to all morals even religious ones. Religion doesn't make it better, at best it is as good. Humans are pack animals, we put in a lot of effort to help the pack.
    - henry_bone 3y ago
      What I'm trying to get across is that a sense of morality is with us all. We have a generally shared understand of goodness, justice, etc. My point is that that morality is impossible to justify in a godless universe. "People feel good when they help ...". No argument. But is morality just about the feels? No, it isn't.
      - NineStarPoint 3y ago
        In order for morality to have any worth at all, it has to be an intrinsic truth (or rational determination) separate from god anyway. If the only reason something is moral is because an original creator declared it so then I don’t personally see the difference to us attempting to determine our own sense of morality based on what feels right. If it’s just an appeal to authority, why does it make a difference if that authority is god or human? Now, if one believes in a creator that is many orders of magnitude (or infinitely) more intelligent than a human, sure, saying that they probably have a better insight into morality and we should listen to them makes sense. But it would be because of their greater ability to understand what is moral, not them being the law maker of morality.
        thfuran 3y ago
        >If the only reason something is moral is because an original creator declared it so then I don’t personally see the difference to us attempting to determine our own sense of morality based on what feels right. If it’s just an appeal to authority, why does it make a difference if that authority is god or human? Well, because the god can stick you in a fire for all eternity if you follow the human's moral code instead. That's not really a great case for the soundness of their moral teachings but nonetheless presents a compelling argument for obedience.
      - heylook 3y ago
        > My point is that that morality is impossible to justify in a godless universe. You say that, and it's good that you did because the arguments you're making don't work together to prove your point in the way that you think they do. What about a godless universe makes morality impossible to justify? Is it that god is the only possible source of morality or meaning or value or something? Because you haven't proven that and can't just take it as axiom.
  - pstuart 3y ago
    Ok, so then if we all follow the Quran we should be good, right? It is the official word of God, right?
  - toofy 3y ago
    > In a godless universe, you are no more significant than a rock. Can you think of anything in between? Why the extreme jump to “it’s either all or nothing”? To state that The Only way to not be a meaningless hunk of rock is to worship your god seems like a pretty big lack of imagination. I don’t need your god or your god’s rules to appreciate that you’re probably an amazing person in many ways. My partner is “godless” and she’s far more amazing than a rock. If you want to argue that certain people need religion and that it may provide more benefit to society when those people personally worship their god I can see how this may be a sound argument. Some people really do need jesus, but this hardly means everyone needs jesus or some other sky god to see the value of other people. This is such a good example of why I push back on organized religions and their foot soldier bible thumpers… this all or nothing thing. I don’t want your god, I don’t want your religious prudery. I thinks it’s amazing that you find meaning there, i really genuinely do. But it isn’t for me. No. I don’t want your god. I still see your value and still care—and, honestly it’s not a wild impossibility that I see value in others and that I do this without a god.
  - The_Colonel 3y ago
    The argument would work better if the Abrahamic god wasn't so clearly immoral, like in the example of Sodom and Gomorrah, killing of Uzzah, the Flood. The god appears to be a narcissist (the faith in him is the most important quality in a person), putting reverence and obedience above all (commanding Abraham to murder his son for no good reason). God as described in bible is a morally despicable person and surely no example to follow.
    - bdowling 3y ago
      This is God’s world, we just live in it. To think that you exist purely for your own sake is pure hubris.
    - arkey 3y ago
      By which standard are you (blasphemously) attempting (and failing to) judge God by, though? Because you clearly don't understand the context or reasoning behind any of the situations you listed, you resort to simply condemning God upon your own authority. You think of yourself as better than God. And that is what sin is. Try acknowledging God as the authority, as He is your maker, and then you might even get to understand all the events you are ignorantly referring to.
      - The_Colonel 3y ago
        > By which standard are you (blasphemously) attempting (and failing to) judge God by, though? I think most people would agree that mass murders are morally wrong. > You think of yourself as better than God. I have my own problems, but otherwise I don't murder people. > Try acknowledging God as the authority, as He is your maker, and then you might even get to understand all the events you are ignorantly referring to. Fortunately the god doesn't exist, and the bible is just poorly written fiction. But even if I was convinced that the Abrahamic god exists, it wouldn't change my opinion that the god is a narcissist psychopath.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    In a godless universe, you are no more significant than a rock. That's a rough approximation of my beliefs. The universe is massive and long-lived. I am neither. I want to leave the world a better place than when I entered it. That trickles down to my daily life - are things better or worse when I go to bed than when I awoke? Being as insignificant as a rock doesn't preclude that desire. And frankly, it's kind of offensive when Christians tell me I'm less-than-moral because I don't need their scripture to decide what's good or bad.
    - henry_bone 3y ago
      "And frankly, it's kind of offensive when Christians tell me I'm less-than-moral because I don't need their scripture to decide what's good or bad." The moral argument isn't telling you that. You people (HN readers) seem intent on misunderstanding my initial statements. It's not that atheists are not moral. Not even less moral than religious people. The point I am trying, and failing, to express is that morality must come from a higher, non-human source. If it does not, then it is just a product of fallible human minds and is entirely meaningless. That's it.
      - alistairSH 3y ago
        ...entirely meaningless... At the scale of the universe, everything we do is meaningless. We simply are what we are and that's that. Realizing this causes me no small amount of existential angst. So I try to live in the moment as best I can and leave the world ever so slightly better than I found it. So maybe we actually agree (on what lack of religion means, not on what we personally believe about morality or existence)?
nnf 3y ago
> without a higher power, we have no grounding for our morality. This might be more convincing if we had empirical evidence that this “higher power” even exists and could discern (and thus agree on) what it wants and why what it wants is good.
wredue 3y ago
You know what’s funny about this? I got $1000 that says that I could name several “Godly” (greater than 90% abrahamic affiliation) that you would immediately label “a shithole country”, but if I were to name the most secular ones, you’d most likely state that “theyre great, beautiful places to live with good people.”
chefandy 3y ago
Read Cicero.
- zogrodea 3y ago
  Read Elizabeth Anscombe or Alasdair MacIntyre. (I'm trying to point out that your comment isn't helpful to the discussion.)
  - defrost 3y ago
    The suggestion of Cicero as a counter to the expressed neccesity to have religion in order to have grounding for morals is sufficient to establish the existence of moral grounds not resting on religion. Countering with two Catholic moral | ethical philosophers doesn't negate the suggestion of Cicero, it seems to be just an attempt to make the first proposition a second time. That's just my drive by two cents worth, FWiW.
    - zogrodea 3y ago
      Cicero might have a good point, but the curt words saying "Read Cicero" by themselves aren't very helpful. It's going to take more time commitment than people reading random forum posts will give to do that. It would be better to try summarising some aspect of his ideas (which is of course a task that would demand time from whoever wishes to promote him). That's why I said the comment isn't helpful. Would you be willing to give the hours+ time commitment if a random stranger said the two words "Read [name]" with no further elaboration or would you ignore it? It would be more helpful in a discussion to bring actual ideas to the table, or else the discussion would consist of no more than reading recommendations.
      - defrost 3y ago
        I had an Oxbridge type education, it was common practice for reading to be suggested with no further expansion. In a thread about education, I expect the responses of the educated. When an absolute position is taken a single exception rebuts the absolute. If a comment is made regarding the absolute necessity of religion as grounding for morals and virtue and a simple response is given "Read X" then I expect that X addresses either supoort or raises an exception. Cicero is sufficiently well known for many to be aware of the material, those that are unaware (in a thread about education) should be curious enough to learn more and advance their own position as to why Cicero may or may not be a suitable rebuttal. FWiW I felt the comment given re: Cicero to be neccesary and sufficient and I'd tip my hat to the user if I had a hat, were to cross paths, and recognised them as such. But this is just me, a random drive by HN commenter. Each to their own.
pstuart 3y ago
Wait, we don't need religion for morality but without it, it has no grounding? Perhaps for you and others indoctrinated to think in such a manner, but for others we do just fine. > The more we move away from God the worse our societies will become. Whose God? How well is it working in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan? The Bard makes an excellent point: "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." We could find countless "justifiable" actions that are based on "God told me to", so ignoring that aspect is dishonest.
moshegramovsky 3y ago
Was society better in the past when it was more religious? If you think so, maybe you could give a hint about how far back we might look. 50 years? 100 years? 250 years? Is there a threshold for belief in God that you think is necessary for a healthy society? 50%? 75%? It's not true at all to state that morality has no grounding without a "higher power". (See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics) For example: belief in a higher power simply isn't required to allow people to make their own medical decisions. Belief in a higher power isn't required to give someone food. It's absolutely fine to propose religion as an ethical framework, but I don't think it can possibly make sense to propose it as the only ethical framework, or to propose that society will become worse if humans "move away from God". There are plenty of good alternatives.
- henry_bone 3y ago
  You're missing the point. You're in good company though. I watched Christopher Hitchens make the same mistake in a similar discussion with Dennis Prager. A number of others in this thread are also doing it. The video link [1] below lays it out pretty well (also points out that A. C. Grayling had the same misunderstanding). Anyway ... It's not that you need God to be moral. It's that you need an objective "higher power" as the source of that morality. So I totally agree with what you wrote there, but you can't make a sound argument for a moral position without God or some objective higher power. > "Belief in a higher power isn't required to give someone food." So it's a moral duty to give a hungry person food. OK. I agree. Now we could have an exchange where you try to make a strong rational case for that, during which I will ask "why?" an annoying number of times until we get to the part where it's clear there is no basis for the moral duty absent a higher, non-human, source. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp9Nl6OUEJ0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp9Nl6OUEJ0
  - vinhcognito 3y ago
    My own moral duty in that case is rationalized quite simply with the thought that if I were in that position, I would want other people to offer me food.
alistairSH 3y ago
Avoiding eternal damnation is kinda the definition of self interest.
- arkey 3y ago
  I am not a Christian to avoid eternal damnation. That's just a very good consequence. I am a Christian because Christ is God. This is bigger than me. This is outside, and regardless of me.

heylook 3y ago

> But essentially self-interest takes over completely. Orrrrrrrr... maybe... it doesn't? Maybe even when we're all alone and have to figure things out for ourselves we can come to understand ourselves in genuine relation to those around us and discover a kind and empathetic morality built from logical first principles? Even without the fear of the judgement of almighty sky daddy?

henry_bone 3y ago
Humans are nothing if not self interested. But that's beside the point here. Why "kind and empathetic"? Who said that's how we should be? If we are nothing more than an arbitrary arrangement of matter, formed according to arbitrary laws of physics, and only for a relative moment, then what is "kind" and "empathetic"? In a godless universe, you are no more significant than a rock. The only sound position you can then take is that there is no such thing as morality.
- Jensson 3y ago
  People feel good when they help others and feel bad when they get scolded by their peers. That is our inner moral compass and is the core to all morals even religious ones. Religion doesn't make it better, at best it is as good. Humans are pack animals, we put in a lot of effort to help the pack.
  - henry_bone 3y ago
    What I'm trying to get across is that a sense of morality is with us all. We have a generally shared understand of goodness, justice, etc. My point is that that morality is impossible to justify in a godless universe. "People feel good when they help ...". No argument. But is morality just about the feels? No, it isn't.
    - NineStarPoint 3y ago
      In order for morality to have any worth at all, it has to be an intrinsic truth (or rational determination) separate from god anyway. If the only reason something is moral is because an original creator declared it so then I don’t personally see the difference to us attempting to determine our own sense of morality based on what feels right. If it’s just an appeal to authority, why does it make a difference if that authority is god or human? Now, if one believes in a creator that is many orders of magnitude (or infinitely) more intelligent than a human, sure, saying that they probably have a better insight into morality and we should listen to them makes sense. But it would be because of their greater ability to understand what is moral, not them being the law maker of morality.
      - thfuran 3y ago
        >If the only reason something is moral is because an original creator declared it so then I don’t personally see the difference to us attempting to determine our own sense of morality based on what feels right. If it’s just an appeal to authority, why does it make a difference if that authority is god or human? Well, because the god can stick you in a fire for all eternity if you follow the human's moral code instead. That's not really a great case for the soundness of their moral teachings but nonetheless presents a compelling argument for obedience.
    - heylook 3y ago
      > My point is that that morality is impossible to justify in a godless universe. You say that, and it's good that you did because the arguments you're making don't work together to prove your point in the way that you think they do. What about a godless universe makes morality impossible to justify? Is it that god is the only possible source of morality or meaning or value or something? Because you haven't proven that and can't just take it as axiom.
- pstuart 3y ago
  Ok, so then if we all follow the Quran we should be good, right? It is the official word of God, right?
- toofy 3y ago
  > In a godless universe, you are no more significant than a rock. Can you think of anything in between? Why the extreme jump to “it’s either all or nothing”? To state that The Only way to not be a meaningless hunk of rock is to worship your god seems like a pretty big lack of imagination. I don’t need your god or your god’s rules to appreciate that you’re probably an amazing person in many ways. My partner is “godless” and she’s far more amazing than a rock. If you want to argue that certain people need religion and that it may provide more benefit to society when those people personally worship their god I can see how this may be a sound argument. Some people really do need jesus, but this hardly means everyone needs jesus or some other sky god to see the value of other people. This is such a good example of why I push back on organized religions and their foot soldier bible thumpers… this all or nothing thing. I don’t want your god, I don’t want your religious prudery. I thinks it’s amazing that you find meaning there, i really genuinely do. But it isn’t for me. No. I don’t want your god. I still see your value and still care—and, honestly it’s not a wild impossibility that I see value in others and that I do this without a god.
- The_Colonel 3y ago
  The argument would work better if the Abrahamic god wasn't so clearly immoral, like in the example of Sodom and Gomorrah, killing of Uzzah, the Flood. The god appears to be a narcissist (the faith in him is the most important quality in a person), putting reverence and obedience above all (commanding Abraham to murder his son for no good reason). God as described in bible is a morally despicable person and surely no example to follow.
  - bdowling 3y ago
    This is God’s world, we just live in it. To think that you exist purely for your own sake is pure hubris.
  - arkey 3y ago
    By which standard are you (blasphemously) attempting (and failing to) judge God by, though? Because you clearly don't understand the context or reasoning behind any of the situations you listed, you resort to simply condemning God upon your own authority. You think of yourself as better than God. And that is what sin is. Try acknowledging God as the authority, as He is your maker, and then you might even get to understand all the events you are ignorantly referring to.
    - The_Colonel 3y ago
      > By which standard are you (blasphemously) attempting (and failing to) judge God by, though? I think most people would agree that mass murders are morally wrong. > You think of yourself as better than God. I have my own problems, but otherwise I don't murder people. > Try acknowledging God as the authority, as He is your maker, and then you might even get to understand all the events you are ignorantly referring to. Fortunately the god doesn't exist, and the bible is just poorly written fiction. But even if I was convinced that the Abrahamic god exists, it wouldn't change my opinion that the god is a narcissist psychopath.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  In a godless universe, you are no more significant than a rock. That's a rough approximation of my beliefs. The universe is massive and long-lived. I am neither. I want to leave the world a better place than when I entered it. That trickles down to my daily life - are things better or worse when I go to bed than when I awoke? Being as insignificant as a rock doesn't preclude that desire. And frankly, it's kind of offensive when Christians tell me I'm less-than-moral because I don't need their scripture to decide what's good or bad.
  - henry_bone 3y ago
    "And frankly, it's kind of offensive when Christians tell me I'm less-than-moral because I don't need their scripture to decide what's good or bad." The moral argument isn't telling you that. You people (HN readers) seem intent on misunderstanding my initial statements. It's not that atheists are not moral. Not even less moral than religious people. The point I am trying, and failing, to express is that morality must come from a higher, non-human source. If it does not, then it is just a product of fallible human minds and is entirely meaningless. That's it.
    - alistairSH 3y ago
      ...entirely meaningless... At the scale of the universe, everything we do is meaningless. We simply are what we are and that's that. Realizing this causes me no small amount of existential angst. So I try to live in the moment as best I can and leave the world ever so slightly better than I found it. So maybe we actually agree (on what lack of religion means, not on what we personally believe about morality or existence)?

nnf 3y ago

> without a higher power, we have no grounding for our morality. This might be more convincing if we had empirical evidence that this “higher power” even exists and could discern (and thus agree on) what it wants and why what it wants is good.

wredue 3y ago

You know what’s funny about this? I got $1000 that says that I could name several “Godly” (greater than 90% abrahamic affiliation) that you would immediately label “a shithole country”, but if I were to name the most secular ones, you’d most likely state that “theyre great, beautiful places to live with good people.”

chefandy 3y ago

Read Cicero.

zogrodea 3y ago
Read Elizabeth Anscombe or Alasdair MacIntyre. (I'm trying to point out that your comment isn't helpful to the discussion.)
- defrost 3y ago
  The suggestion of Cicero as a counter to the expressed neccesity to have religion in order to have grounding for morals is sufficient to establish the existence of moral grounds not resting on religion. Countering with two Catholic moral | ethical philosophers doesn't negate the suggestion of Cicero, it seems to be just an attempt to make the first proposition a second time. That's just my drive by two cents worth, FWiW.
  - zogrodea 3y ago
    Cicero might have a good point, but the curt words saying "Read Cicero" by themselves aren't very helpful. It's going to take more time commitment than people reading random forum posts will give to do that. It would be better to try summarising some aspect of his ideas (which is of course a task that would demand time from whoever wishes to promote him). That's why I said the comment isn't helpful. Would you be willing to give the hours+ time commitment if a random stranger said the two words "Read [name]" with no further elaboration or would you ignore it? It would be more helpful in a discussion to bring actual ideas to the table, or else the discussion would consist of no more than reading recommendations.
    - defrost 3y ago
      I had an Oxbridge type education, it was common practice for reading to be suggested with no further expansion. In a thread about education, I expect the responses of the educated. When an absolute position is taken a single exception rebuts the absolute. If a comment is made regarding the absolute necessity of religion as grounding for morals and virtue and a simple response is given "Read X" then I expect that X addresses either supoort or raises an exception. Cicero is sufficiently well known for many to be aware of the material, those that are unaware (in a thread about education) should be curious enough to learn more and advance their own position as to why Cicero may or may not be a suitable rebuttal. FWiW I felt the comment given re: Cicero to be neccesary and sufficient and I'd tip my hat to the user if I had a hat, were to cross paths, and recognised them as such. But this is just me, a random drive by HN commenter. Each to their own.

pstuart 3y ago

Wait, we don't need religion for morality but without it, it has no grounding? Perhaps for you and others indoctrinated to think in such a manner, but for others we do just fine. > The more we move away from God the worse our societies will become. Whose God? How well is it working in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan? The Bard makes an excellent point: "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." We could find countless "justifiable" actions that are based on "God told me to", so ignoring that aspect is dishonest.

moshegramovsky 3y ago

Was society better in the past when it was more religious? If you think so, maybe you could give a hint about how far back we might look. 50 years? 100 years? 250 years? Is there a threshold for belief in God that you think is necessary for a healthy society? 50%? 75%? It's not true at all to state that morality has no grounding without a "higher power". (See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics) For example: belief in a higher power simply isn't required to allow people to make their own medical decisions. Belief in a higher power isn't required to give someone food. It's absolutely fine to propose religion as an ethical framework, but I don't think it can possibly make sense to propose it as the only ethical framework, or to propose that society will become worse if humans "move away from God". There are plenty of good alternatives.

henry_bone 3y ago
You're missing the point. You're in good company though. I watched Christopher Hitchens make the same mistake in a similar discussion with Dennis Prager. A number of others in this thread are also doing it. The video link [1] below lays it out pretty well (also points out that A. C. Grayling had the same misunderstanding). Anyway ... It's not that you need God to be moral. It's that you need an objective "higher power" as the source of that morality. So I totally agree with what you wrote there, but you can't make a sound argument for a moral position without God or some objective higher power. > "Belief in a higher power isn't required to give someone food." So it's a moral duty to give a hungry person food. OK. I agree. Now we could have an exchange where you try to make a strong rational case for that, during which I will ask "why?" an annoying number of times until we get to the part where it's clear there is no basis for the moral duty absent a higher, non-human, source. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp9Nl6OUEJ0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp9Nl6OUEJ0
- vinhcognito 3y ago
  My own moral duty in that case is rationalized quite simply with the thought that if I were in that position, I would want other people to offer me food.

alistairSH 3y ago

Avoiding eternal damnation is kinda the definition of self interest.

arkey 3y ago
I am not a Christian to avoid eternal damnation. That's just a very good consequence. I am a Christian because Christ is God. This is bigger than me. This is outside, and regardless of me.