Faith, Beer, and Other Things That Interest Geoff

If you don't believe in God, there can be no objective morality.

Geoff, I love you dearly, but this is the stupidest thing I've ever heard you say. Objective morality existed before religion. Objective morality is was created religion, not the other way around. How can religion be the source of an OBJECTIVE morality, when there are so many different and conflicting religions. Would you say that Islam is a source of objective morailty? What about the Branch Davidians? The Church of Satan? Both of those last two are sects of your own religion.

To believe that there is no objective morality outside of religion is one of the great conceits of the pious. It is their way of feeling superior to those around them. Frankly, it's widespread existence in religious membership is limited to only a few religions: Islam and Christianity being two examples. It is an easy way for a person of faith to not have to be introspective of their own morality. They don't have to question their own morality because, hey, they're religious, why would they have to? That way, they can simply gloss over such introspection when making any moral declarations.

This is the type of thing that allowed Gary Condit to be the first Democrat to publicly state that Clinton was immoral for cheating on his wife and should resign. He then turned around when he was in a similar situation and, while being forced to admit to an affair, never once even suggested he was morally wrong. After all, how could he have been? He was a good Christian, and as such never had to question his own morality because, hey, that's just a given for a good Christian.

It is an insult to my moral beliefs for someone to outright claim that I cannot be morally objective because I'm not religious. Oh, shit, let's be honest, Geoff. What you're really driving at is that you have to be a good Christian, or possibly a good Jew, maybe one or two other religions out there that you don't think are linked to terrorism, in order to be morally objective.

The fact is, you take your morals from a religion. How can that possibly be objective? You haven't weighed them against countering beliefs. You haven't seriously considered the implications. You may have done these things in a blanket way when you originally decided to accept Christianity, but the two major problems with that in this context are: 1) Did you ever seriously weigh Christianity with other relgions from a moral point of view and 2) You accepted Christianity and the moral beliefs that come from it, but have you then subsequently questioned every moral belief you adopted through Christianity, or have you simply adopted them because you felt God wanted it that way?

In issue two, if it's the latter, then that can't be objective. If it's the former, I find it amazing, I mean absolutely amazing that you have fallen in line with every moral belief your religion preaches, since that would probably make you the only person in the world for which that genuinely held true.

As for logical consistency, let me ask you this (and this is something I ask a lot of Christians, not one of whom have ever really addressed the issue directly even after being asked): How can you say that to be against things like killing, and let's use that as a specific example, you have to believe in God. In the Old Testament, God told Abraham to wipe out the Cananites to the person. No sparing of the women and children; no taking them on as slaves; nothing. Kill every last one of them. Why? Because these people live in the land that I want you to have.

Is this consistent? There are moral inconsistencies in every text. Now, I know you believe that's the case with the Koran--again, that's why I don't understand why you say moral objectivity requires a belief in God since you really mean a belief in the same God that YOU believe in. However, the same is true of the Bible.

How is it that two criminals, who are essentially guilty of doing the same thing, can have different outcomes. One believes in Jesus, the other doesn't, so one goes to heaven and the other goes to hell? Now, I know the Christian response to that question, but I'm actually driving at something a little different here. The guy who goes to heave does so because he believes Jesus is his savior. And yet, he committed many sins. So basically, doesn't that story suggest that the bottom line of Christianity is that right and wrong doesn't matter as long as you confess and some point and ask Jesus for forgiveness? So by that belief system, as a practical implementation, I can committ all the abortions I want as long as I eventually accept Christ into my heart. Hey, where's my coat hanger?

Look, I realize I have just grossly oversimplified morality as it is portrayed in the Bible. I also realize that this gross oversimplification somewhat skews my point. However, you have grossly oversimplified objective morality, and that gross oversimplification has somewhat skewed your point.

Religion is a source of morality. It is not the only source, and it isn't always a good one. The first indication that it isn't a good source is when people begin to make statments saying that it is in fact the only source.

Hwang
 

No. You can be an atheist and morally objective. There just isn't a logical basis for it. How can there be? We are just a collection of molecules and your consciousness will be destroyed some day. X is wrong. If there is no God, I see no reason to give a crap about anything or to believe murder is moral or not moral. Murder kills someone. Who cares? Well you should care because it hurts society and their family members. Who cares?

What I'm driving at is that the sense that there is a right and wrong is imprinted on the human heart by God. You can believe in an objective morality. You just have no ultimate reason for that morality.
 

First thing's first. What you said in your comment isn't even close to what you said in your original post.

Secondly, what you're basically saying is that the reason for being moral is because if you're not, God will punish you. So, the only reason you're being moral is that you're afraid you'll get punished by God. Boy, this really isn't the New Testament God of love you're dishing out here.

Third, so what is right. I'll actually concede to you that if it makes no bearing on anything after we die, there is ultimately no "reason" for us to be moral. Yet, people like me choose to be anyway. So what? Why does it matter that, from your point of view, I SHOULDN'T be moral. I shouldn't, and yet for some reason I am. Does that really matter? There was a guy the other day who I wanted to kill. Genuinely wanted to kill him. We were in a very dark and quiet area of town. Had I killed him, the chances were about zero that I would ever get caught. I didn't. Why? Who cares. I didn't. At the end of the day, that's all I care about, and that's all that guy cares about.

Fourth, conceding your point basically means this: You're moral because you're forced to be. There's actually the implication from your viewpoint that if God were to turn his back one day or if he simply never existed, you would probably go immoral on Earth's ass. I am moral simply because I genuinely choose to be. By your own arguement, you have a reason to be moral, I do not, and yet we both choose morality over immorality.

A more concrete example of this is that they've run studies on teenagers with certain viewpoints about sex. They essentially break them down to the ones who say they will absolutely not have sex before they're married, the ones who say they absolutely will, and the ones who say they're not sure.

The point of the study was to look at pregnancy and STD rates. The highest rate of pregnancy and STD was in the abstinence group. The conclusion was that this group kept their idea of birth control propped only on one foundation--absinence (they pulled their sample pool with enough of a religioius filter that Catholic ideology most likely played little part in the way the numbers came out). The others did not.

Frankly, it's the same thing here, just on a broader scale. You base your morality on one and only one thing: being scared shitless of God. I base mine on a combination of factors. In the end, I'd take my stable foundation over sitting on one pole any day of the week.

Now, I'm an agnostic, so it's not like I can't pray for you, I just don't know if I can. However, since you made such a condescending remark about praying for someone's soul (and frankly, Christians don't seem to understand just how condescending it is when they say they're going to do that), let me just say that I hope for all our sakes that your moral foundation eventually finds enough breadth.

Hwang