Would any theists here behave less morally if "there was no God"?

[Abdul Fattah]

Simple answer, it is not required, but simply the most probable answer.

 

[Trumble]

I call bs.

You're describing a meaningless abstraction.

It isn't; as a philosphical concept it is both well described and tremendously influential (and the reason why Kant is often regarded as one of the greatest thinkers of all time).

I'll leave the science to those who actually know anything about it but following up from Qatada's

There is no such thing as past, present and future. They are only perceptions of the human mind who perceives the universe this way.

the concept has one hugely significant philosophical role; it provides a solution to idealism (the idea there is nothing beyond the mind at all) the case for which was surprisingly strong, indeed terrifyingly so to Kant. The price, though, is a metaphysics that by definition must remain not only unknown but unknowable; as we can only experience things through our own set of filters and constructions rather than as they really are (as far as that phrase has any meaning). Science is as trapped in that framework as anything else, so relativity, quantum mechanics and all the rest of it describe only our experience of that reality, not reality itself. Which may or may not be God.

 

[KAding]

IMHO it to a large part boils down to empathy, which the overwhelming majority of humans have, regardless of their religious beliefs. I think this is a fundamental human characteristic. It hurts us to see someone else hurt. This is an emotional response. This gets augmented by it's more rational cousin, altruism. Altruism is IMHO fueled by ideology and beliefs (whether secular or religious), which tell us it is right to do good and help others. Altruism is not based on a punishment/reward philosophy. Finally, conditioning is also important, this is mostly what Trumble was talking about I think. An implicit moral code will develop, simply because it is the only real way to organize society. And once it is in place, upbringing and social conditioning will make sure many people will follow it.

But what is moral and what is not? I think this is why many religious people might find they would be less moral without a God. It mostly concerns all the hedonistic 'victimless crimes'. Is it immoral if two consenting adults have sex outside of marriage? Is it immoral to drink alcohol? Is it immoral to use drugs? Is it immoral watch pornography? Is it immoral to eat pork? Once we see no obvious harm being done to other, I think atheists will be less likely to qualify something as immoral and 'wrong'. Yet we all agree on the fundamental "do no harm".

 

[Abdul Fattah]

But what is moral and what is not? I think this is why many religious people might find they would be less moral without a God. It mostly concerns all the hedonistic 'victimless crimes'. Is it immoral if two consenting adults have sex outside of marriage? Is it immoral to drink alcohol? Is it immoral to use drugs? Is it immoral watch pornography? Is it immoral to eat pork? Once we see no obvious harm being done to other, I think atheists will be less likely to qualify something as immoral and 'wrong'. Yet we all agree on the fundamental "do no harm".

I would argue that for each of these "victemless crimes", there can be many victims, however, the relation isn't always direct and hence harder to spot, and the damage to the victim isn't always that large.

 

[Gubbleknucker]

Yet we all agree on the fundamental "do no harm".

Don't forget, "Offer no risk of harm."

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Don't forget, "Offer no risk of harm."

No. That would be a lie. Every action has a consequence. Schools don't offer any "no risk of harm" policy. I either pass the courses or fail out of school and become a bum.

 

[KAding]

I would argue that for each of these "victemless crimes", there can be many victims, however, the relation isn't always direct and hence harder to spot, and the damage to the victim isn't always that large.

Absolutely, and many non-believers will also consider some of these 'victimless crimes' immoral, based on all kinds of beliefs. A belief that people should be protected against their own desires for example. Or a belief that they indirectly cause harm to 'society' and thus all of us.

There is also a fundamental disagreement between people whether something that is 'bad' is also necessarily 'immoral'. You mentioned cigarettes. Clearly they are 'bad' for you, but does that make them immoral? And do we want something to be outlawed if it 'bad', like say cigarettes? And what if it is more obviously 'immoral', like say adultery? There pretty much is consensus that adultery isn't ethical, yet most people would be opposed to outlawing it. There is absolutely no agreement between non-believers on how harming yourself or morality should be dealt with from a legal perspective. There is not one 'atheist' ideology that tells us how to deal with such issues.

It is all much more of a gray area than it is for religious people. After all, determining whether such acts should or shouldn't be considered moral depend on pretty complex arguments and social analysis. It goes beyond merely interpreting scripture.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi

Absolutely, and many non-believers will also consider some of these 'victimless crimes' immoral, based on all kinds of beliefs. A belief that people should be protected against their own desires for example. Or a belief that they indirectly cause harm to 'society' and thus all of us.

There is also a fundamental disagreement between people whether something that is 'bad' is also necessarily 'immoral'. You mentioned cigarettes. Clearly they are 'bad' for you, but does that make them immoral? And do we want something to be outlawed if it 'bad', like say cigarettes? And what if it is more obviously 'immoral', like say adultery? There pretty much is consensus that adultery isn't ethical, yet most people would be opposed to outlawing it. There is absolutely no agreement between non-believers on how harming yourself or morality should be dealt with from a legal perspective.

Yes I fully understand the secular approach. I used to be atheistic before I converted, so had similar views. However, the error in it seems obvious to me now. Something bad or harmful is by default immoral. And in all fairness even atheists should admit this.
But like I stated earlier, I think the problem lies in that this "harm" or "badness" can in some case be relatively small, so that many atheist will deem it permissible, since the harmful effects are neglectable, especially when considered from an egocentric p.o.v.

There is not one 'atheist' ideology that tells us how to deal with such issues.
It is all much more of a gray area than it is for religious people. After all, determining whether such acts should or shouldn't be considered moral depend on pretty complex arguments and social analysis. It goes beyond merely interpreting scripture.

Yes, even to the extend that it can cause indeterminism and immobilism. And for that reason alone, I would already consider the atheistic morality inferior to the Islamic one.
This might sound harsh, but consider my perspective:
*) A secular/atheistic morality, starts from nothing, and in theory tries to change and adapt towards a system as close to perfection as humanly possible. So it is by definition, and by belief of the followers a work in progress and admittedly imperfect.
*) An Islamic morality, starts from the belief that our creator knows us best, and has already revealed the most perfect system possible. Therefore any change in this system can only be for the worse.

*) So building on the premise that Islam is true; an islamic morality would be superior to an atheistic one.
*) Of course I grant, that building from the premise that Islam would be false, the islamic morality is unlikely to be perfect, and hence a secular/atheistic morality would probably surpass the Islamic morality sooner or later.
*) However, If I consider the Islamic rules and morality at face value, without either of those two premises, I'm still quite confident that it is a perfect system (not in the utopic sense of perfection, but rather as-good-as-it-gets-perfection).

 

[Pygoscelis]

To the atheists here I ask this question turned on its head.

Would any of you behave less morally if "there was a God"? I like to think that I would stand by my moral convictions even given an almighty power demanding I do otherwise and threatening me with eternal torture. But that may just be what I like to think. If God were real and he was demanding things of you that you find immoral could you stand up to him?

 

[AntiKarateKid]

To the atheists here I ask this question turned on its head.

Would any of you behave less morally if "there was a God"? I like to think that I would stand by my moral convictions even given an almighty power demanding I do otherwise and threatening me with eternal torture. But that may just be what I like to think. If God were real and he was demanding things of you that you find immoral could you stand up to him?

Are you asking, would we do something "immoral" if Allah asked us to?

The question is nonsense for the reason that if we are both talking about the same Allah, who's traits include justice, then it would be illogical to say that the act he is asking us to do is immoral.

Moreover, I wouldn't worship one who is unjust/merciless/etc.

This question reminds me of the "can an omnipotent god create a stone he cant lift?", the answer is no, but not due to a lack of ability on gods part, but because of the illogicality of the question because it contradicts the premise.

Also, you can go ahead and choose to keep your own moral convictions but if they go against a just and and all-knowing God's rules, then you are necessarily following evil and are being arrogant (Satan's main character flaw)

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

To the atheists here I ask this question turned on its head.

Would any of you behave less morally if "there was a God"? I like to think that I would stand by my moral convictions even given an almighty power demanding I do otherwise and threatening me with eternal torture. But that may just be what I like to think. If God were real and he was demanding things of you that you find immoral could you stand up to him?

Good question. Like you I'd like to think I'd be able to stand up to an authoritarian moralist with all the power in the universe, but at the same time I find it a very hard situation to imagine. I always have.

If this actually existent god was known to be morally perfect, then human behaviour that contravened his rules would be immoral by definition, no matter what we thought about it.

On the other hand, if the actually existent god was in the habit of regularly and visibly smiting people who didn't follow his commands, and that causal link was clear for all to see, I reckon most of us would fall into line pretty quickly.

Peace

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Greetings,


Good question. Like you I'd like to think I'd be able to stand up to an authoritarian moralist with all the power in the universe, but at the same time I find it a very hard situation to imagine. I always have.

If this actually existent god was known to be morally perfect, then human behaviour that contravened his rules would be immoral by definition, no matter what we thought about it.

On the other hand, if the actually existent god was in the habit of regularly and visibly smiting people who didn't follow his commands, and that causal link was clear for all to see, I reckon most of us would fall into line pretty quickly.

Peace

Exactly my point about your actions being immoral by definition. Besides, Allah doesn't smite without reason. You're an atheist and haven't been struck by lightening but have been guided to an Islamic forum right?

 

[Pygoscelis]

Are you asking, would we do something "immoral" if Allah asked us to?

Actually it was a question for the atheists.

Moreover, I wouldn't worship one who is unjust/merciless/etc.

I like to think I wouldn't either. But given that God was all powerful and vengeful and threatened you with eternal torture, are you sure you could stand up to it?

This question reminds me of the "can an omnipotent god create a stone he cant lift?", the answer is no, but not due to a lack of ability on gods part, but because of the illogicality of the question because it contradicts the premise.

The question is meant to demonstrate the difficult to understand or possibly irrational nature of "all powerful".

Also, you can go ahead and choose to keep your own moral convictions but if they go against a just and and all-knowing God's rules, then you are necessarily following evil and are being arrogant (Satan's main character flaw)

Who is to decide if this God is all just and all moral? Does having infinite power entitle one to define justice and good? Does might truly make right? And does creating life entitle you to do whatever you like with it or to it? This may be where atheists and muslims fundamentally differ and that may be why my question will not compute for a muslim. As a non-christian who feels that the christian conception of God is not moral I am often told that I will "bow to God" in the end, which to me means giving in to an immoral authority figure of unlimited power. I am wondering if my fellow atheists here would do so.

 

[Gubbleknucker]

To the atheists here I ask this question turned on its head.

Would any of you behave less morally if "there was a God"?

Yes. If there was a God I would do whatever He asked, regardless of whether it was moral or not.

This does not mean I would act less morally of my own free will, but hey, He's God, dude! If He wants it, it's gonna happen. It doesn't matter what little ol' me thinks.

The people of the Old Testament clearly agree.

It isn't; as a philosphical concept it is both well described and tremendously influential (and the reason why Kant is often regarded as one of the greatest thinkers of all time).

I thought Einstein and time as a fourth dimension did away with this concept entirely? You can't have both.

 

[Trumble]

I thought Einstein and time as a fourth dimension did away with this concept entirely? You can't have both.

Read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, or (perhaps being more reasonable!) a decent summary of same. Just had a quick look and the Wiki one is actually rather good. Read down to 3.2.

 

[HinduIconoclast]

The question "would any theists here behave less morally if "there was no God"?" itself is misleading because there are Buddhists and Jains who do not believe in God yet still are supposed to behave morally because of their belief in karma.

My answer to the question is yes. If God did not exist (or we were not accountable for our actions in any way), I would certainly act less morally. I think this is a weakness among humans in general because we sin quite a bit. This is why God has to keep us in line because if He didn't try to keep us in line we would probably all end up burning in hell forever because there was no concept of accountability for one's actions.

 

[Gubbleknucker]

My answer to the question is yes. If God did not exist (or we were not accountable for our actions in any way), I would certainly act less morally. I think this is a weakness among humans in general because we sin quite a bit.

I don't think that everything you call "sin" is necessarily immoral.

This is why God has to keep us in line because if He didn't try to keep us in line we would probably all end up burning in hell forever because there was no concept of accountability for one's actions.

I disagree, especially in my greater familiarity with the Christian religion, where all is forgiven.
I think that since there is not a god, we are responsible for our own actions: God can't make us do anything, and he can't absolve atrocious acts.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

I don't think that everything you call "sin" is necessarily immoral.

But who are you to say something is not immoral?

I disagree, especially in my greater familiarity with the Christian religion, where all is forgiven.
I think that since there is not a god, we are responsible for our own actions: God can't make us do anything, and he can't absolve atrocious acts.

Greater familiarity? All is forgiven?

"therefore I say to you: Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven. And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come."

 

[Gubbleknucker]

I can say I have a greater familiarity with Christianity because my family is Irish Catholic and most of the religious people I know are Christian.

But who are you to say something is not immoral?

I am a human.

It is immoral to harm other humans.

Unnecessary cruelty to animals is immoral.

Coercion through aggression is immoral.

Taking advantage of people is immoral.

It is immoral to blindly harm the environment our children must live in.

It is immoral to take what is not yours.

etc.

 

[HinduIconoclast]

But all those things you mentioned are all humanistic morals which is where atheists and agnostics fall short since they do not try to avoid blasphemy, homosexuality, and other things which do not harm other humans even though it is against God's will.