RE: Being good without god
February 12, 2013 at 9:07 pm
(This post was last modified: February 12, 2013 at 9:14 pm by genkaus.)
(February 12, 2013 at 3:33 am)apophenia Wrote:
I think the main point theists are trying to make is that, yes, you don't seem to need a belief in God in order to be good, but why? Saying that our biology makes it so tends to rob the phenomenon of what, for lack of a better term, might be called its "moral dimension." If moral decisions are simply an expression of a particular biological expression, what specifically is "moral" about those choices? It seems to suggest that human morals are little more than happy accidents of evolution, which is a view which is less than satisfying to many, regardless of their religious beliefs. (And it quickly succumbs to arguments about moral relativism, "Why is a lion's desire to eat us less morally justified than our desire to prevent it from doing so?")
The question is not can we be good without God, but how are we truly "good" without God in a truly moral sense. I often hear the POV of the OP, but it's only half an argument. I've yet to see someone complete the other half.
(And there are plenty of books out there which have attempted to do so. Alas, I haven't read most of them.)
It is also a misrepresentation of morality and a false dichotomy.
Both positions are based on presenting a generic platitude which, on face of it, people would find satisfying and acceptable, but upon a little more thought, become unacceptable.
Consider the belief - "man is inherently or instinctively moral". A lot of people would subscribe to this view as long as they don't think it through. But doing so they realize that it means that their moral actions are simply written onto their genes. That their morality is - as you said - happy accident of evolution. And that, as you say, is less than satisfying.
On the other hand, we've the view that having belief in god makes you moral. However, if you think about it more deeply, you'd realize that this means you are little more than god's handpuppets. You still don't have a moral sense of your own but are simply being controlled and directed by another being. Is this what you mean by being "truly moral"?
One choice reduces you to an animal being blindly guided by instinct and the other to an automaton following the dictates of whatever thoughts come into you head - both reduce you to something less than a human being.
The reason one would find both options unsatisfying is because of the realization that morality requires though and reflection over your actions. In order to be "truly" moral, your choices need to be of your own will - not simple dictates of your biology nor unquestionable commandments of another being.
(February 12, 2013 at 9:03 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: It was one of those situation where I went to look for something specific but the search brought up an interesting sounding article.
The assumption of "good" is simply a moniker. I called it "good" for lack of a better term.
Basically, I call it good because it is an example of a non-self serving act that benefitted humanity on a small scale. Not Christian morality based at all, it is simply a way to differentiate the act from something "bad", or, something that does not benefit humanity.
The reason I see the influence of Christian morality is by the inclusion of the qualifier "non self-serving". If your act had been self-serving - if you had done it to impress your girlfriend for example - would it not have been "good"?
