You Don’t Need God For Morality

God is not required for morality.

Citations:

1. J.L. Mackie (1982), The Miracle Of Theism: Arguments For And Against The Existence Of God, Clarendon Press, Location 1710 (Kindle)
2. Erik Wielenberg (2005), Value And Virtue In A Godless Universe, Cambridge University Press, p. 49 (Kindle)

Links:

"How Can We Demonstrate that Objective Moral Values Exist to a Nihilist Who Holds They Are Illusory?"
(Craig Clip)

"Over 100 Arguments for God ANSWERED"
(Joe Schmid highlights various problems with trying to ground "the good" in God. I have linked directly to the part of the video where he starts talking about moral arguments)

[Ponera-Sama]

"Objective" literally means not dependent upon a subject. In this context a subject just means a conscious being. So unless you believe God is a non-conscious impersonal force, which most theists don't, then morality that's grounded in a God is by definition not objective.

[toegap]

As a christian, I never understood this argument that christian theologians present. I imagined that if a society thought it was okay to say murder people or steal at will, then over time they will realize there are significant consequences and simply make a rule stating no more killing. I don't see how we cant over the course of thousands of years come to that conclusion without a spiritual moral compass even as a christian. Well said.

[uncleanunicorn]

Certainly my moral perception makes it impossible to accept the god of the Old Testament, or the New Testament for that matter.

[Venaloid]

If we accept our perceptions of moral facts as true, then we can automatically discount Christianity when its perfectly moral God behaves in ways that seem morally disgusting.

[Matteo-]

In that case, I can decide that my morality says it's okay for me to steal a bike from a rich person.
Without any standard of morality, in a world where everyone decides what they think is right, people can do whatever they want.

If you point to some standard of morality like "do un to others", then you are pointing to some form of objective standard that has to have come from somewhere.

Without God, all you can do is decide what seems good to you, and you don't know everything and will therefore make mistakes. It may be morally acceptable to you to sleep with multiple people, but to others it is wrong, so what's correct?

[simonsays]

Honestly I don’t understand half of what this guy is talking about, and granted, either I’m too dumb to understand, or he is hiding his own logical holes behinds walls and walls of fancy sounding words.

So let me put it in simple everyday man speak for my own benefit.

All morals basically boil down too “correct human behaviour” vs “incorrect human behaviour”

But to answer that you need to establish “what is a human?” Are we just animals, or are we a reflection of the divine, made in Gods image?

Because if we are just animals, then there is no moral code, because animals have no morals outside of survival and reproduction. Where as humans in the image of god, “correct human behaviour” is whatever accurately reflects that.

So in short, no God, no morals.

[frmrchristian]

Like Matt Dillahunty has said, "When reading the Bible, how did you determine that Yahweh (God) was the "good guy"?

[eensio]

Human compassion is the result of evolution and enables teamwork. Religion is related to the use of power, where a group tries to subjugate other groups of people. On the contrary, it tends to extinguish compassion and manipulates people by undermining and intimidation.

[gregjones]

A Native American friend once told me that his belief was to treat all things with respect and expect the same in return. He said that the belief was as old as his people. That would be far older than the bible. It makes sense to me.

[richardwilliams]

Morality from God? The same God of the Bible that committed genocide against the Canninites

[piijay]

Nobody is saying Atheist cannot live Moral lives. The problem is the Atheist cannot justify Morality without an Objective Moral Standard! That's the problem!

[wayoutdan]

I have always thought of moral intuitions in the same class as mathematical axioms. They just are. Not even god could change them.

[jimkucera]

All you are doing is saying what you think is true. Why should I believe that what you say is true. You have your opinions I have mine. Tell me oh great voice of reasoning where does your information come from?

[LM-jzvh]

*"God is the Source of Morality. (Not.) | atheologica"*

*"Is God Necessary for Morality? | atheologica"*

*"Morals Don't Come From God: For This I Know Because the Bible Tells Me So"* - Dr Steven DiMattei.

[BrockJamesStory]

If you can give me the evidence that God does not exist I will have to acknowledge that murder is not wrong, rape is not wrong and I will have to learn to accept those things as being perfectly okay.

[YusufGinnah]

I like to believe that objective morality is an inherent human trait.
And some inserted it into religions so that they could provide references for why it _had_ to be followed.

[KD-ehqo]

This argument does not pose a problem for what Dr. Craig has said. Craig's moral argument says that only in the absence of a defeater or reason to doubt are you justified in believing moral realism. We have no reason to doubt that our moral experience is objective just as we have no reason to doubt that our sensory experience is objective. On the other hand, we have very good reasons (i.e. defeaters) to show that the slavery and 'genocide' (which in reality was God's judgement) in the Bible were not objectively evil but that they were just.

The error in Non-Alchemists argument is that he is comparing morally contextual narratives with moral/immoral acts by themselves. We know that rape is objectively evil. But we don't know if an act of someone killing a person was objectively evil unless we have all the details of what happened (for example, it could have been self defense or an accident)

Also, there doesn't have to be agreement on every moral issue in order for moral realism to be true just as the existence of a blind man doesn't prove that the existence of the sense lf sight is not objective

[jamesbarlow]

"There are no moral phenomena; only moral interpretations of phenomena."
- Nietzsche

[_flowuniversity]

Human Beings created Morality as a means to protect society. We project “evil” onto those who threaten the status quo of society. In essence we discriminate between those who live by the social bounds and laws and those who don’t. God did not create morality. He created a means by which human beings could purify themselves and reconnect to the spiritual plane of existence. To argue that God created morality is to limit “it” to the confines of human understanding. Making what you’re talking about not God but a construct /being that can be dissected with only a small basis of truth from your level of understanding.

[lewinwickes]

Whenever somebody says we can have morality without God, my first questions are these: Whose? Yours? Mine?