What is the point of morality if you're a theist?

[Esquilax]

I'm sure we atheists have all heard it before: "What's the point of being good if there's no god?" And we all understand just how silly that is, along with all the attendant claims of moral relativism and secret belief in god and so on.

But the more I think about it, the less that question makes sense, and the more it says about the theist that's asking it. The standard answer to this idea that morality becomes meaningless without a god dictating it is that the person barely held back from immorality by their almighty creator is far more immoral than the person capable of being good without the threat of hell. That's a fine answer, but really, the question doesn't need one: it can be asked back to the theist quite comfortably.

What purpose does the theist think morality serves, if they're asking this? Leaving aside the question of whether or not god made it or not, is there really not a reason for it that the theist can envision? Is it their view that god just created a set of random moral laws for no reason and applied them to humanity, or is there an actual, practical reason for these things?

So, theists, help me out: is there a reason, in the physical world, why your god proposed commandments like "thou shalt not kill," or was he just doing it for funsies?

If you can think of a practical answer, that's the answer to the "good without god" question too.

[DLJ]

D'uh!

It's all about god(s)'s nature, silly.

Their god thinks it's a bad idea to kill, that's why he...

no...

hang on!

[Faith No More]

When I hear the "what's the point of doing good" question from a theist, what I hear them actually saying is "if I didn't have a god watching over me commanding me to do so, I would be out raping and murdering." It's an admittance that the only thing holding them back from being a complete sociopath is the retribution they believe they would receive for being so, and that is acting out of pure self-interest. The atheist that does good for the sake of doing good can be considered more moral than the theist that does it simply because of the whims of their deity.

[Esquilax]

When I hear the "what's the point of doing good" question from a theist, what I hear them actually saying is "if I didn't have a god watching over me commanding me to do so, I would be out raping and murdering." It's an admittance that the only thing holding them back from being a complete sociopath is the retribution they believe they would receive for being so, and that is acting out of pure self-interest. The atheist that does good for the sake of doing good can be considered more moral than the theist that does it simply because of the whims of their deity.

That's partly why I created the thread: you're absolutely right that that's how it comes across at first blush, but when confronted with it, miracle of miracles, the theist is suddenly able to come up with plenty of reasons sans god for their moral behavior. Because morality does correspond with reasonable behavior within context, for the most part.

The type of theist who would ask that question generally relies upon a lack of self reflection to maintain their position, because just a cursory glance at religion shows that it rarely has solutions for the problems it highlights in secular morality. Their god must have reasons for its pronouncements, and since there's no necessity for god, it doesn't need anything it can't create, there's no reason for god to do anything, beyond the limitations of the physical world. Rules and strictures don't make sense in a realm where anything is possible, after all.

There's this great Discworld book, Monstrous Regiment, that has the other kind of god in it, the kind that makes pronouncements based on nothing at all, prohibiting all sorts of things based only on his whims. That god was characterized as fucking insane.

I submit there's a reason for that.

[downbeatplumb]

There's this great Discworld book, Monstrous Regiment, that has the other kind of god in it, the kind that makes pronouncements based on nothing at all, prohibiting all sorts of things based only on his whims. That god was characterized as fucking insane.

I submit there's a reason for that.

Ah yes the god Nuggan.

I love that book. I shall have to dig it out after I've finished the Game of thrones books.

[Hobbitgirl]

When I hear the "what's the point of doing good" question from a theist, what I hear them actually saying is "if I didn't have a god watching over me commanding me to do so, I would be out raping and murdering." It's an admittance that the only thing holding them back from being a complete sociopath is the retribution they believe they would receive for being so, and that is acting out of pure self-interest. The atheist that does good for the sake of doing good can be considered more moral than the theist that does it simply because of the whims of their deity.

But does it really have to stop them? They just have to ask for forgiveness and they are good with the dictator sky daddy....so really they can do whatever they want if they want to.

[Bob Kelso]

Magic man morality is terrible anyway:

Thou shalt not kill.

... Except when I tell you to kill every last man woman and infant in my name.

Thou shalt not steal.

... Except when I think property should be yours, so go take it from them.

Love and brotherhood for others.

... Except when they aren't straight or of another faith.

There's so many exceptions to their golden rules.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It has always struck me that moral/ethical actions have more value if there is no punishment or reward involved - 'virtue for virtue's sake', so to speak.

Suppose I see a child drowning in a pond. I have the ability to save the child, but I stand there doing nothing. Then, someone offers me $1000 to rescue the child, so I do. In another scenario, the someone holds a loaded gun to my head and promises to kill me if I don't save the child. In either case, it seems clear that an incentivized or compelled action has less moral value than an action undertaken for its own sake.

Boru

[DLJ]

It has always struck me that moral/ethical actions have more value if there is no punishment or reward involved - 'virtue for virtue's sake', so to speak.
...
Boru

Kinda.

But there is a reward in saving the child.
The same reward you get for returning a lost wallet or for picking up some litter or anything that gives you that warm fuzzy feeling of being a member of a social group.

A chemical pat on the brain for not being a socio/psychopath.

[Hobbitgirl]

It has always struck me that moral/ethical actions have more value if there is no punishment or reward involved - 'virtue for virtue's sake', so to speak.
...
Boru

Kinda.

But there is a reward in saving the child.
The same reward you get for returning a lost wallet or for picking up some litter or anything that gives you that warm fuzzy feeling of being a member of a social group.

A chemical pat on the brain for not being a socio/psychopath.

Chemical brain pats are fantastic.