Secular Morality
As an atheist there are few things more infuriating than some ass hole saying “there is no morality with out God.” Of course I know that majority of people don’t believe such garbage but there a few (some very vocal) who do. Of course its complete bull shit. Morality Dose exist with out God, in fact I can easily think of fore main sources of morality.
- Social need: For social creatures to survive as social creatures rules are needed, with out rules any social system will collapse.
- Instinctual: All social creatures (and even solitary creatures) have rules and these rules are instinctual. A pack of wolf’s/dogs has rules and the rules remain the same even if the pack is raised by humans, Chimpanzees have rules for there troupes, Lions have rules for there prides, Dolphins have rules for there pods and these rules are instinctual based.
- Emotional: Humans are born with empathy, compassion and a conscience. We feel for others, when something bad happens to someone we feel bad for them, when we do something wrong we feel guilt.
- The deal: A simple unwritten, unspoken deal that every one agrees to. You don’t want people doing certain things to you and no one wants you to do those things to them, people do not want others to do certain things to them thus we agree not to do those things to each other.
4 simple secular, non-god based logical sources for morality. Of corse these do not tell us what is moral and immoral but they give us the framework categorizing things as morel, immoral and gray.
What makes the the statement worse is that theism tends to corrupt morality. 9/11, the inquisition, the crusades, Islamic fundamentalist terrorism, animal and human sacrifice, wars fought between Protestants and Catholics, wars fought between Christians and Muslims, wars fought between Muslim and Hindus, wars fought by Christians, Muslims and Jews against Pagans, oppression of minority religions, oppression of religions that are not “blah” religion.
By putting your morality in the hands of a god, what ever you think that god wants becomes morally right and what you think god dislikes, doesn’t want or just declares wrong becomes morally wrong. What it is doesn’t madder, it could be impaling baby’s, roasting them and eating them, if that’s what you think God wants than that morally right.
Updated 3/15/08
[...] Secular Morality [...]
[...] Secular Morality [...]
I am an atheist and have been since I was a teenager.
I am a good, moral person. I’m married and have two children that I raise in a loving home with their father. I am kind to others. I do not drink, smoke or do drugs. I stay at home with my kids and do not party or otherwise abandon them.
Yet I cannot find another like myself. All other mothers are scared off when I tell them I do not go to church or believe in god. The few that agree with my beliefs do party or drink, smoke, etc.
I did find a local Humanist group which had meetings. I asked if they had family/community activities and they said no.
Is it so hard to be a non-believer and yet find a group of friends to enjoy time with? I couldn’t bear to raise my kids with other people preaching to them just so that we can fit in with a community.
Where are all the moral atheists in my area? Afraid to come out?
Well we are a minority and theres allot more theists than atheists and there are allot of atheists in the closet. They are afraid to come out (especially in the bible belt), there are allot of Christan’s who are intolerant to atheists and atheists who have a family mimbers who is intolerant toward atheists will remain in the closet.
Its realy sad.
Lone Wolf, I’m a dyed in the wool Christian myself and I agree whole heartedly with your piece. I know there are alot of moral and upstanding non believers. Even though being a Christian I disagree with your spiritual views, or the lack thereof, I will defend you to the hilt to have the right to hold those beliefs…or non-beliefs. Sorry. Haven’t really spoke on the subject too much.
It’s true that there is alot of intollerant people in this world, unfortunately they are on both sides. I believe I have a right to put a nativity scene up on my lawn. You should be able to put up anything in your lawn as well unless, citing your example in the peice, that it violates common decency or laws. I don’t agree with abortion on deman, but at the same time I don’t agree with blowing clinics up who perform them.
I think in a lot of cases we just seem to be represented by the wrong people on both sides of the issue. It’s kinda like what Jeff Foxworthy says about the only person that they interview about the tornado that went through was the most socially inept person in the trailerpark. lol
I’m sorry that you are having a hard time finding people of decency that share your views. I think alot of that stems from the fact that most people are inable to control themselves without a belief system for support in upholding those moral societal values. When they are “took off the chain” so to speak, the human drive to go wild or do immoral things is just too great for them to stem. I applaude you for your ability for self control and all those like you. As for your kids not being preached to, it’s about as hard as shielding your kids from atheistic beliefs that society seems to gravitate to for us believers. Eventually they are going to hear about God in some shape form or fashion. As a Christian though I’d just ask you not to demonize the person who shares it. Assuming we as believers are wrong with our belief in God and Christ, we still mean no harm just as you sharing your non belief is intended to cause harm.
Good luck out there.
You say that morality exists without God. Without God to give us our morality, it makes morality relative, left up to the individual. In this case, if I decided to steal something from you, and I think that it’s moral and you think it’s immoral, how are you going to prove me wrong? You can’t tell me that I’m wrong without there being some kind of universal morality that applies to all people, in all places, at all times. Without God this is impossible because other cultures view things to be right that we view to be wrong. For the sake of argument I will use abortion. Let’s say our society believes that abortion is wrong and another society in the world believes it is right, we both can’t be correct at the same time. That violates the Law of Non-contradiction which states two opposing views on one issue cannot both be correct in the same sense. Another basic example, if you think 2+2=4 and I think 2+2=3, we both can’t be correct, one of us is wrong.
Above, you write about 4 sources of morality. You talk about rules that exist in these. Who makes up these rules? Where do they come from? I know that you would probably say that the instinctual rules are innate, they are within us. If I were poor, my instinct might be to steal something, or rob someone so that I can survive. How are you going to tell me that I am wrong for doing so? It was my instinct.
You also state that these four examples are non-God based, but in your fourth example you say that we should treat others the way we want to be treated. Well, I hate to burst you bubble but that statement came straight from the Bible, Luke 10:27 “…Love your neighbor as yourself.” If you’re going to love another individual as you would yourself then obviously you wouldn’t do anything to hurt them.
I only read half of what you said and I could see that you did not read the post at all. Read it then reply or I will delete the above comment.
I did read what you posted. Your claim is that there is morality without God. You can see clearly that I addressed that issue if you would have read all of my post. Don’t accuse me of not doing something, when you yourself are guilty of doing the exact thing. You can’t just read the first part of my post and assume you know everything else I’m talking about or what my view is. This would be reading haphazardly. I feel like you are guilty of this with a lot of scripture that you quote.
So you tell me what you think after you’ve read all of my post.
No you didn’t.
Quote you
Me in the post it self
And
Those to addressed your quote before you even comminted.
Blocked!
Questions for Lone Wolf,
In the “Social Need”, where do these rules come from? Who gets to decide what’s right and what’s wrong?
In “The Deal”, if this “deal” is unwritten and unspoken, then why do I have to follow it? And, how do you know that everyone agrees to it?
It would be helpful if you people read the whole thing.
Quite me, in the page
I’m talking about the origins of morality.
Wow, you didn’t even attempt to answer my questions.
In response to your quote, if this doesn’t tell us what is moral and immoral, then what does? Where does this “framework” come from? Who’s decision is it to categorize something as right or wrong?
If your sources above doesn’t tell us what is right and wrong, then what does?
One more thing. you say you’re talking about the origins of morality. So, what are the Origins?
Our brains. Think! Use your brain. You believe Yahweh gave you a brain, now use it.
Reread the post.
You tell me that we use our brains to determine what’s right and wrong. If you think about it logically, we all have different opinions of what is right and wrong. You can clearly see that you and I have differing opinions of what is right and wrong. If we leave it up to our brains to decide what is right and wrong, then when two people have opposite opinions on the same issue, who is correct? They can’t both be correct. If morality is left up to our brains, then that makes morality relative. If this is what you believe about morality, then you can’t argue with me and tell me that I’m wrong, because my brain tells me that I’m right. So, then, who are you to tell me that I’m wrong?
According to your view on how we determine morality, which is with our minds, no one at all can tell someone else that they are wrong. For you to tell me that I’m wrong for doing something would imply that there must be morality outside of our minds that applies to everyone, everywhere. Otherwise, you can’t expect me to live my life according to your own personal standards.
[...] Secular Morality [...]
[...] Secular Morality [...]
This question has been on people’s minds for a long time. Generally it doesn’t matter, except when we are required to judge, as in a court case, or to use another example, a civil marriage or business merger.
George Washington stated in his farewell address that religion and morality were separate, yet like the legs of a chair, very important, even essential. Particularly for courts and people in power over other people. I never got the feeling that his was an “antique” or “obsolete” way to run a country, and when he speaks, I listen.
He himself was not particularly right wing Christian, though as a Mason, he would have had to have been at least a deist.
My personal belief is that some rare people can have a morality within themselves, some people (as you suggest in your post) are prepared to ratify a social contract in order to get along with their neighbours, some people are sheep, and some people are wolves. All need to have the terms of the social contract explained. A marriage vow, for instance is one part of a social contract. The second party would be the “state” or the “church” or whatever social unit is important to you. This is the part of “religion” which has nothing to do with dogma, and everything to do with socialization.
The separation of church and state, when this is taken into account, is problematic. However, it can be done. G.W. simply didn’t think it was possible to swear an oath without a diety to swear it by!
Anyway, there is much to be said for both points of view. Like you, I lean towards the unpopular view that people can look after themselves.
Page 20 of Washington’s Farewell Address cut and pasted below.
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens. The mere Politican, equally with the pious man ought to respect & to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private & public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the Oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure–reason & experience both forbid us to expect that National morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
‘Tis substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule indeed extends with more or less force to every species of Free Government. Who that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric.
Adam Ridley -
How refreshing, a liberal Christian! I never thought I’d find one, congratulations on your open-mindedness!
I feel that all people should be free to believe as they choose. Unfortunately, of all of the world’s religions, past or present, to the best of my knowledge, only the adherents of Christianity and Islam feel the need to “convert” others to their ways of believing, which means that the majority of Muslims and Christians do NOT share my feelings. That’s sad.
It’s frightening how hard the Religious Right – AKA, the American Taliban – is fighting to get religion into the public schools, contrary to this country’s Constitutional prohibition against merging church and State. Are they failing to indoctrinate enough children in their churches and homes, that they feel the need to force teachers to supplement that indoctrination?
Most frightening, is the Texas Schoolbook Controversy that is determined to remove Thomas Jefferson and Dr. Martin Luther King from their textbooks, while insisting that Creationism be taught alongside Evolution.
This, though in Texas, is critical for the country, as Texas orders more textbooks than any other state, and publishers use what Texas decides on, as the standard for all the country’s texts: http://www.tfn.org/site/PageServer
Again Adam, thanks.
pax vobiscum,
archaeopteryx
in-His-own-image.com
Actually, “the Chad,” Confucious advocated doing unto others as we would have them do unto us, 300 years before the man you quoted in the book of Luke.
And Confucianism isn’t even a religion, simply a life philosophy, with no invisible god writing rules on stone tablets, just a thinking man, trying to decide what principles people might need to consider if they’re going to live together in harmony.
I realize that guilt is a built-in by-product of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic ideology – and the idea of “original sin” is a perfect example of that – consequently, you’ve doubtless been raised to believe that “the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5), but frankly, I have found that Man is both far more noble and far more base, than we can possibly imagine him to be. The truth is, that more people have been killed in the name of religion, than for any other reason, and this is still happening today.
Left to Himself – without the influence of an invisible god – Man will either adapt to the needs of His fellow Man, or He will annhilate Himself from the planet. Either way, He really doesn’t need any help, but feel free to pass on my “thanks, anyway” to old Yahweh, unless of course he’s busy drowning people.
Which reminds me – doesn’t that “do unto others” thing apply to him too? After all, if he came up with it, shouldn’t he practice what he preaches? I’m just sayin’ –
pax vobiscum,
archaeopteryx
in-His-own-image.com
“the Chad” –
Not sure if I should post this, as I see (below) that LW blocked you, hence you can’t defend yourself -(not sure I’d have done that, but the man that makes the site, makes the rules) – you feel that we need a “universal morality that applies to all people, in all places, at all times.” and maintain that “Without God this is impossible….”
I KNOW you don’t want me to point to the “Thou Shalt Not Kill” section of the Ten Commandments, and then go to Exodus and Leviticus and balance that commandment against all of the rules god gave Moses that he demanded the death penalty for breaking. Or the thousands upon thousands of people, including women and children, that god ordered the Israelites to kill upon conquering their cities.
Was that the “universal morality that applies to all people, in all places, at all times” to which you were referring?
I’d have to call it an extreme case of situational ethics: “Thou Shalt Not Kill – except….”
pax vobiscum,
archaeopteryx
in-His-own-image.com
Sam I Am –
RE: “you can’t expect me to live my life according to your own personal standards.” I can’t disagree with that, nor would I expect you to insist that I live my life according to yours – that’s what personal freedom is all about.
But in the event that, say, you and I meet – whether in a post or in person – and we find that our individual, personal standards conflict with one another, then we must compromise – each sacrificing a portion of our standards until a level playing field is reached – or agree to put enough distance between ourselves that our standards don’t conflict.
You have every right to swing your fist – but that right stops just short of my nose. We don’t need a god to tell us that.
pax vobiscum,
archaeopteryx
in-His-own-image.com